Loading...
1m. Minutes • j 1 Ir. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Geving STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Jim Chaffee, Lori Sietsema and Todd Gerhardt ' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Final Plat Approval, Stratford Ridge. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to A-2, Agricultural Estate District, First Reading. d. Resolution #88-90: Final Acceptance of Lake Riley oods Addition Improvements. y f. Approve Execution of Letter of Understanding for Utility Service to Beddor Property. g. Approval of Plans and Specifications for HSZ, TH 7/TH 41 Site. j. Approval of Accounts. k. City Council Minutes dated August 15, 1988 City Council Minutes dated August 22, 1988 ' Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 1988 All voted in favor and the motion carried. (C) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, TIM ERHART. Mayor Hamilton: Barb, I had a question on item 1(c) . The staff is recommending ' that the subdivision request to plat a 10 acre parcel as a meets and bounds description, I thought we're not doing that. I think as a matter of practice we haven't done meets and bounds for quite some time. I curious to know why we're doing it now. Barbara Dacy: To clarify condition 1, Parcel A, the 10 acre piece will be a platted lot. Probably be a lot number, Erhart Addition and the remaining parcel, the 66 1/2 acre parcel would remain as meets and bounds. The subdivision- ordinance permits that the parcel can be further subdivided and it can exist as a meets and bounds. So we will have the 10 acre piece as.. . r 1 126 f 7 ja City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I thought that the parcel, and I don't remember the name on the parcel, maybe you remember down by Pat Swenson's. I can't remember the name. They were requesting the same type of thing. Councilman Horn: Is that where we turned two lots into three? Mayor Hamilton: They wanted a meets and bounds description on the portion that was being divided out to make a homestead and we wouldn't allow them to do that. I guess I just want to make sure that we're doing this consistently with that. I Barbara Dacy: That lot you might be referring to is in the urban service area and if they're in the urban service area, you have to plat everything. We wrote the Subdivision Ordinance for the rural area to allow some flexibility for these larger parcels. Mayor Hamilton: Then on one of the conditions, condition 2. The applicant , provide, it says at least a 30 foot. I'd like to change that to say the applicant provide the minimum of a 30 foot roadway easement. That's on page 4, condition 2. I just think it clarifies it better. Hopefully it will be wider than that. Any problem with that? Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Preliminary 1 Plat for Tim Erhart with the noted changes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (H) AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, SOLICITOR LICENSES, FINAL READING. Councilman Horn: My question on that is, unless I've missed something, it i appears to me that high schoolers who go through the neighborhood selling newspapers or the Fire Department selling dance tickets are required to get a permit from the City even though, since it's an organization, it may be at no cost. Is that correct? Did I interpret that properly? Jim Chaffee: I'm saying yes. I'll leave it up to Roger to follow up on that. 1 Roger Knutson: 10-142, page 2 specifically exempts newspaper sellers. Councilman Horn: Sometimes it's magazines. Kids and their magazine orders. ' Roger Knutson: They are not exempt. Councilman Horn: That's the way I read it also. Then I'd have to vote against this. Mayor Hamilton: I had exemptions. It could seem to me we ought to specify that anybody who is licensed by the State should be exempt. Also, I was wondering about garbage haulers and cleaners. We do have cleaners who pick up at homes and deliver clothing. I feel that they should be exempt. Garbage haulers, I guess I had a question on that. Should they be exempt or not? What's your thought on that Roger? 2 r City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ' Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't the cleaners be exempt because they're doing it by appointment? IIMayor Hamilton: But they're not. The cleaners that have been in town, if you " put a sign in your window and they have a regular they see the sign that � route that they follow, if q you want to have a pick up, they'll stop. ' Councilman Johnson: You've inviting then in. This is for the people who aren't invited and are knocking on the doors. Mayor Hamilton: Since somebody is making an attempt to control everything that happens in town, I want to make sure that those that are trying to function in town, can do so legally. ' Roger Knutson: I don't think garbage haulers are included as written. read the definition of If you peddler, solicitor and transient merchant, someone who comes and picks up your trash on a regular basis, unless they're going door to door soliciting customers, would not be under this. A peddler is someone who makes and sales and delivers articles. I don't think they fit the definition of any of these people. They're not taking orders. All they're doing is taking ' your trash. Mayor Hamilton: But they do from time to time solicit. They'll come around and say, knock on your door and say, here's our rates. Roger Knutson: Yes. If they do that, they would have to get a permit. Mayor Hamilton: 10-145, investigation and issuance of licenses. If there were ' to be an investigation, I think it should be at the applicant's expense, should be a part of that. 10-147, I don't know that it comes in here but how about political soliciting? As candidates are going door to door, where is that provided for in this ordinance? ' Councilman Johnson: He's not selling anything. Roger Knutson: Would not be a solicitor under the definition because he's not selling anything. Don Ashworth: Under 10-146 Roger, would that not include the group that Clark was referring to? In other words, if school members are out trying to sell ' magazines as a part of the school band program or something like that, as I read that? Roger Knutson: Yes. Don Ashworth: So you really are covering charitable groups like that? Roger Knutson: If it's charitable, patriotic or philanthropic organization. Councilman Horn: Except that they still are required to have a permit from the City Clerk as I read this. The organization. Don Ashworth: Right. There would be no fee. They just simply have to notify us. 3 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ., Councilman Johnson: Would that be an overall permit for all their activities or would each different band sale and football sale have to be covered or just be one? I would assume it would just be one permit that we give to Chaska High or to District 112 even. Don Ashworth: I don't see where it would be overly difficult but to give you an ' example. This past summer we had a group of teenagers that were selling candy bars door to door for literally a fictious group and they were soliciting anywhere from $1.00 to $10.00 for a 25 cent candy bar and it was not for any religious, charitable group at all. It was simply a way to make money. Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other comments? Is there a motion on this item? Councilman Johnson: I move approval. Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. ' Mayor Hamilton: Are you satisfied Clark that your groups are included. ..? Councilman Horn: Yes. I got the answer. , Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Final Reading I of the Amendment to the City Code, Solicitor Licenses. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor. Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Horn voted in opposition and the motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Councilman Boyt: Can I ask a comment Tom? I know I was late. On item (i.) , I can not make September 15th's budget worksession. If we could find another date. Don Ashworth: I'd like to discuss that maybe later in the agenda. Dale will be out of town and so will Jay. Mayor Hamilton: If we can hold that off to the end of the evening, we can try to find a date that's good for everybody. VISITOR PRESENTATION: REQUEST TO PROCLAIM CONSITUTION WEEK, SANDY BUNKER, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Sandy Bunker: Good evening. I'm Sandy Bunker from the Daughters of the American Revolution. I've been in contact with the City offices to request that the Council proclaim Constitution b4eek the 17th through the 23rd of September. I have pulled a proclamation sample... Resolution #88-91: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve proclaiming the week of September 17-23, 1988 as Constitution Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried. tii 4 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 F"'° It r 1 I Father Barry Schneider: I would like to request the Council at this time to consider speed zoning the area past our school on TH 101 and the church to perhaps 15 mph. It is presently 30 and with children right on that street, and 1 sometimes Family of Christ youth on the other side, I think 30 mph is a little high. I guess I started thinking about that because my dog got hit there last Monday night and now I'm thinking of human beings. Children and perhaps even on II the other street corner by our kindergarten. There are little children there, babies traffic coming out and they're stopping on that street. I would request the Council to consider a speed rezoning. IIMayor Hamilton: You're talking about on TH 101, on West 78th Street? Father Barry Schneider: TH 101 up to Great Plains. Through there. Traffic used Ito slow down because there was a stop sign there. The stop sign was removed and the traffic moves much more quickly now. I Mayor Hamilton: I think we can not do that since that's a state highway and the speed limit is minimum of 30 mph. I think that's correct on that but we could perhaps do a better job of signing. We'll do what we can to try and get the II speed reduced but I know that the minimum speed that we can put up is 30. State law. Councilman Horn: You might be a school zone. IMayor Hamilton: Yes, we could get it school zoned and have additional signage to try and slow traffic down. IGary Warren: I'm meeting with MnDot on Friday so I'll bring it up. II Councilman Hoyt: Would it help to have more enforcement there? Are people actually doing 30 mph in that zone? Mayor Hamilton: Pretty much. As I travel down there, they seem to be. IICouncilman Johnson: When the deputies did a survey there, they found the average speed was 31 mph. The survey was done with a marked police car which I was seen well in advance so the people weren't traveling their absolutely normal speed. I saw them two blocks away. If you're going to do a radar survey, it should be kind of hidden. IIMayor Hamilton: Perhaps Jim, you and Gary can work on that problem. II PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING BOAT MOORINGS AND SWIMMING RAFTS, FIRST READING. Public Present: Name Address It Mr. and Mr. Lynn Hall 3980 Hawthorne Circle Roger Byrne 6724 Lotus Trail I Dave Peterjohn 3921 Hawthorne Circle II Mr. and Mrs. Mike Schroeder 6600 Lotus Trail 5 II f City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 II Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Barbara Dacy: This proposal is to amend the current Chapter of the City Code I regarding boats and waterways. It was originally known as a water surface useage ordinance. Because of a variety of issues that have come up over the last boating season, staff has prepared the proposed ordinance for Council consideration. Ire have notified all of the Homeowner's Associations, the lake II rights as well as the lot owners abutting the lakes in Chanhassen. Basically there are four changes that are being proposed. The first change is adding this item 2 in the water surface useage ordinance regarding the ability to moor a II person's boat in the lake in front of a lot in which they reside. As now written, this under 2, does not exist. The proposed ordinance would require that you would have to have a home on the lakeshore site. Lakeshore site means II a lot abutting the lake and you would have to moor the boat within 25 feet in front of your lakeshore lot. This was as a result of a couple of issues. Number 1, the Park and Recreation Commission considered a number of requests about mooring boats in front of park property. This change has concurrence of the II Park and Rec Commission. Secondly, this provision would consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance regarding accessory uses and principle uses. As now written, a dock is an accessory use and if you have a lakeshore setting, you II would need to have a principle use or a single family home before you could have a dock on a lake. The second change is in regards to swimming rafts. This also was considered by the Park and Recreation Commission regarding the ability to have a swimming raft in front of park property. The way it is proposed here in II mm Section 2, we would be adding a proposed subsection (c) requiring that swimming rafts must be located within 100 feet of lakeshore property. Again, with the home located on the lot. The third change is regarding the removal of swimming I rafts and docks. One of the biggest items that the Park and Recreation Commission was the use of the Carver Beach swimming raft. Because this swimming raft has been used for a number of years by a number of people around the lake, II the ordinance has been written to allow this particular raft to become a non- conforming use so this section of the ordinance allows the re-establishment of non-conforming swimming rafts and docks established in the lake. That's under Section 3 of the proposed ordinance. Now, the fourth item that's going to be II considered is this particular section does not include the ability to moor a boat. So for example, if you do not own lakeshore property at this point in time, you would moor your boat in the lake, you would not be able to moor the II boat next season if this ordinance is adopted. I cited a particular example in here in the staff report that the City Staff has received a number of phone calls regarding Outlot A of Kelllyne Addition. I know both parties, Mr. Hall II and Mr. Peterjohn are here to speak on that particular situation. What City Staff is proposing is that there probably are a number of these situations where either lakeshore property is vacant and people have been mooring their boat on the lake or some type of previous mooring that maybe there should be a process II incorporated into the water surface useage ordinance for the Council to review each of these situations on an individual basis and have the ability to apply certain conditions. If that is Council's policy, then we would suggest that II Section 6-22 be revised to account for that process. Lynn Hall, 3980 Hawthorne Circle: I understand and respect the thoughts that planning and Council have put together in regards to these situations and don't r disagree with your thoughts on it with the exception that I understand, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that owners of rafts would not be treated the same as the owners of boats is a right situation where essentially they're 6 II ,. City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 equal uses. The provision of allowing a variance process to be gone through or boat moored would be available however, I understand the proper procedures here II that would be necessary for the Council's four-fifths vote to approve such a move, then it would be very difficult for me to obtain any type of a variance such as that. I may propose or suggest the idea of a conditional use process thus controlling giving the City Council to maintain a level of control over this. My situation, which planning is well aware of, I purchased a piece of property that was sold to me with the understanding that I had a legal non- conforming use and that that legal non-conforming use was verified and documented by the City. In adopting this particular provision in the ordinances, I'd be stripped of a right that had been granted previously as a legal non-conforming use. I guess to put it quite simply, I don't feel that ' that's fair under these provisions. I guess I'd hate to see the City take a position on changing this ordinance and on this matter that they consider some alternatives. If this ordinance were to be put into effect, it would essentially put my back against the wall. When I purchased the piece of ' property for a reason of being able to use the lake. An establishment of a right that I'm now having taken away. You leave me no alternative but to defend my property value and the rights that were granted thereof. In further adding, I hate to see the City put into a position where potentially they're spending the taxpayers money to settle what I think to be somewhat of a minor disagreement between a couple of neighbors. I guess in closing, I would just ' hope that an alternative could be sought in controlling this particular situation and my previously established rights of non-conforming use be maintained. Roger Byrne, 6724 Lotus Trail: I'm not too use to public speaking so kind of bear with me. I guess I don't agree with staff and I don't see the need for this ordinance at all. I don't see why they even brought it up in the first place. Like this gentleman said here, I think it's more neighborhood squabbles with neighbors and stuff like that than having anything to do with any control or anything. I can't see any control problem on any of these lakes. There's a few things out there and they've been there for a long time, a lot of them and ' some come and some go but the Council gave lakeshore owners the right to have 3 boats moored on their property. They can have unlimited number of small boats pulled up on shore and the public don't have any right to have anything out there if this ordinance goes past. Now this ordinance, the water surface useage ordinance was passed in, I don't know, I think it was '83. That thing had been worked on for 2 or 3 years before that by citizen committees and through the ' Council 5 or 6 times. It had been amended and amended and finally they got it right. The way they wanted it and that's the way it went through. Now all of a sudden they come back and say, oh no, I guess we gave somebody some rights that they shouldn't have had. We better amend it. Don Ashworth there brings it on himself to draft this here ordinance and put it up before the Council. They said it went through the parks coi uittee but I don't think so. I don't think the Parks committee had anything to do with it. I think it was Don Ashworth and ' George.. .and that's the way it is. These people know that and it's just discrimination against the public to use that lake just like anybody else. It's just as much our lake as it is as if you were a lakeshore owner on the property. This ordinance is wrong and I think you people know it's wrong and I think you ' should vote it down. You shouldn't even consider this ordinance. We've got enough ordinances out there to stop anything you wanted to stop on the lake. You're stopping too much stuff, people can't even use it except the people that ' own lakeshore. They have all the rights in the world and the public has very ' 7 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 little on that lake. I hear talk about the raft in Carver Beach. They say, Y well maybe we can get that one out of there and the City will put a raft out there. The City has 15 years to put a raft out there. We give that land to the fil City more than 18 years ago and you haven't done anything to that park. That park has been there. It's a mess in there. It's full of poison ivy. They talk about a path through the park. It's full of poison ivy. The poison oak. The kids can't even go in there. What little bit we have there, we've done ourselves. Now you want to take us out of that. The public has a right to that lake just like anybody else. I think that raft should stay there and I think you should take this ordinance and, we don't need it. It should have never been drawn up. It's just plain discrimination by a few people in this town that are trying to jew everybody else out of their rights on that lake like everybody else. I think you people know that. If you look deep in your heart, you'll figure that's the way it is out there. Like I say, I'm not very good at this but I hope I got my point across. I had some other points but I feel kind of blank up here. Dave Peterjohn, 3921 Hawthorne Circle: I'm Lynn Hall's neighbor and I'd like to say first that I think this is a very unfortunate situation for both Mr. Hall and myself but I think it's a situation that happened with Mr. Hall's previous homeowner that I think misrepresented the rights that Mr. Hall had in purchasing the property. Just a little background, I own a piece of property that I built a house on that abuts up to Outlot A, which Mr. Hall and his wife own the rights to and have a house off-site of the lake. When we investigated purchasing the property several years ago, we had looked into covenants. Covenants for this particular outlot stated very plainly that the outlot owners and the people who have rights, do not have a right to have a boat or a dock on this piece of property. When Mr. Hall purchased the property, he was completely unaware of these particular covenants from the previous owner so I guess our feeling is, having a boat moored down there is an argument that Mr. Hall has with the , previous owner. I think where the issue comes into play for us as homeowners, presently you can have up to 3 watercraft on a piece of property for a homeowner. This particular piece of property is 20 feet wide that separates our lot with the neighbor's lot. There are two other potential buildable or questionably buildable lots that this outlot that are going to be perhaps built upon years down the line that may have these rights as well so we're looking at potentially 9 boats that could be on a 20 foot outlot. I don't think that the intention of this ordinance would allow something like this. One of the things that I wrote to you in the letter was that currently in the Chapter 6 on the ordinance it says, Section 2(b) , there's a dock setback ordinance. Presently from lakeshore owners, if they set their docks, they have to be 10 feet off their lot line in order not to encroach on the neighbor's property. One of my suggestions, if we do allow boat mooring, is to have the same sort of restrictions. I'm not advocating doing that. I personally am not in favor of boat moorings but the way i.t stands right now, you can not have a dock within 10 feet of your lot line. I can't see why you couldn't have a boat, or you can't also have a boat within 10 feet so that's our position. I think it's a very unfortunate situation. I feel for the Hall's position but I think that we, looking down the line on what the value of our property is going to be when we sell our property. When the City expects property owners to pay premium taxes for the right to have boats on there, I feel that I would be against having boats moored on Lake Minnewashta. 8 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 1 Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail: I live right off of the parkland area at the end of the park strip and by Fox Chase. I'd like to speak against this ordinance. I agree with Rocky there. I've lived in Carver Beach for over 10 IIyears and my wife has lived there for over 20 years. A couple years ago we bought Mr. Winter's farmhouse there down along the parkland there and we talked to the DNR and we talked to the people there and we applied for a permit with ' Carver County Water Patrol to moor our boat out there. We spent the money to get the official mooring and that kind of stuff and now we find this ordinance which, in our opinion, seems to be drafted specifically towards us. I believe ' it is a misuse of the City Council. The City Staff. The taxpayer's dollars and the time of all the people here who had to come up here to try to stop this ordinance. There's no danger that anyone's identifying to the people down in that area of Carver Beach. It's a situation where the environment, there's been ' the raft and all the other things there for many years. It seems like this ordinance is being prompted by a small group of people who want to make the lake look just like they want it to look and be just like they want it to be and the ' heck with the rest of the people. I think that's a misuse of the power of the City. I do not believe this ordinance is a result of any complaints, at least that I'm aware of, of people in the Carver Beach area. I think when we have I problems in the area, we try to work it out with each other and I think that's worked for many years. I don't believe there's any citywide impact here that this ordinance is addressing. The big issue that is affecting the people of the City of Chanhassen. Laws and ordinances are designed to protect people of the ' City and to protect the rights and the priviledges of individuals and I do not believe this ordinance does that. In addition, as the way the ordinance is currently written, it seems to be specifically discriminatory towards people who have bouys. That has been specifically left out of the copy that I had. Apparently they have made special provisions for some of the process of dealing with people who have mooring bouys and I don't think that's fair to us and I think that should be changed if this ordinance is passed. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask the City Attorney a question. Can a non- ' conforming use be sold to a new resident? Roger Knutson: Yes. ' Councilman Johnson: So as long as a use is continued, the new property owner could buy it? ' Roger Knutson: Non-conforming uses run with the land like a conditional use permit, zoning, variance. Councilman Johnson: But if they skip a year, don't put out a mooring buoy for a year, if they have a non-conforming use that's going on, and they skip it for a year, what happens? 11 Roger Knutson: They're out. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of problems personally with the direct land owners that have a house and have a boat across from our park there, our 9 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ,, parkland on a mooring buoy out away from the edge of the shore. I think what the Park and Rec seems to be against is people leaving their boats up on the City's property on the edge of the land and call that mooring of boats. I'm not sure if that is considered mooring. I've always considered mooring as to having a buoy out there and you tie it off the buoy and the boat floats free of the land. I'd like to see those people who have been doing that for so long, it seems to me to be prejudicial to exclude that and leave the raft. The raft's more of an eyesore than a sailboat sitting out there flittering the wind. That's where I sit on this ordinance. Councilman Horn: I have a question of Roger too. In fact, several questions. There seems to be disagreement in the notes that I have on whether that was a legal non-conforming use at the time it was transferred. Apparently there were covenants in existence at that time which obviously we don't deal with but was that a legal non-conforming use that was transferred? Roger Knutson: I'm not the best person to tell you what the facts are. As far , as I know, they're violating any ordinance today so yes, they're a legal use. Councilman Horn: Apparently there were some questions on staff's part as to whether they could or could not moor a boat. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Hall's Attorney and Mr. Hall has stated that the previous owner, Mr. Bohling had stored a pontoon boat. The Peterjohn's and other neighbors have contested that there was no boat storage there. At this point, Mr. Hall is mooring his boat out in front of the outlot in conformance with the Water Surface Useage Ordinance. Councilman Horn: Did he come in for a non-conditional use permit at the time that the ordinance was put into place? As I recall, when that ordinance was put into place, all outlots had to come in for a non-conforming use requirement and they were logged as such that they didn't intensify their use. Barbara Dacy: They didn't come in for a conditional use permit but the City did ' take an inventory at that time in 1982 and identified which beachlots existed at that time but they did not go through Planning Commission and City Council. Councilman Horn: When they took the inventory, was their a boat on the outlot? Barbara Dacy: No. Councilman Horn: Then that would seem to set precedent of what has transferred. As Roger said, if they don't use it for that use, the non-conditional use away. Barbara Dacy: In talking with Roger about that though, the City Staff at that time conducted a survey on June 11, 1981. There could be an argument made that that particular day, a particular homeowner's association did not choose to put out their dock or have boats out yet so what we're doing in trying to analyze these beachlot ordinances, trying to get affidavits from homeowners to verify exactly what existed at the time of the ordinance adoption. It's going to be difficult for the City to prove that what's on a dock out there, in this case on a one day survey. 10 , City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ' Councilman Horn: As I understand these conditional use permits, and we're going to come to it later in the contractor's yard, it's up to the person requesting III that to outline what is included in that. What the use is going to be. How many trucks or whatever. It would seem to me that it would be incumbant upon the homeowner to request that conditional use permit and define what his useage is. If the City goes out there, in fact doing him a favor and if he has a ' greater use on that than what the City had indicated, he should have requested that at the time that the permit was granted. The non-conditional use permit. ' Barbara Dacy: That's the policy we might take again. We just identified what beachlots were non-comforming in 1982 and did not have them in for a specific process. ' Councilman Horn: I specifically recall when that was enacted and the way it was to be been was that each use of each beachlot was to be recorded and only that use would be allowed in the future. Nothing over and above that would be ' allowed. Barbara Dacy: If they wanted to expand that, they would have to come back and ' get a conditional use permit. That's correct. Councilman Horn: The other problem I have is that I'd like to ask Roger, if we make an exception on this swimming dock, does the City have any liability ' because we're allowing it to be moored in a non-conforming fashion off City property? Roger Knutson: The fact that it's conforming or non-conforming to your zoning ordinance in this case, would not make it to mean more or less dangers. There's always potential when you allow anyone to do anything that you can get sued. There's a State Statute that says when you issue permits, you should be free ' from liability so I guess I would not be particularly worried about any liability problems. ' Councilman Boyt: Who is liable? Roger Knutson: Whoever moored the boat there. Councilman Boyt: Boat or raft or whatever? Roger Knutson: Whatever. Councilman Horn: Do we have an owner? Isn't part of the process putting an owners name and things on this type of structure? ' Barbara Dacy: Yes, I believe that's required. Roger Knutson: On rafts. ' Councilman Horn: So would this be an association raft or how would it be identified? Who would be the owner of it? Barbara Dacy: Who are you talking about? Councilman Horn: I'm talking about the raft at Carver Beach. 11 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 .' Barbara Dacy: It would be the raft that's out there now? Councilman Horn: And who owns that? Don Ashworth: Mr. Bryne I believe. Roger Bryne: , og yne: Everybody's. That raft has just been there for 30 years and everybody uses it. It don't belong to anybody. Councilman Horn: That's my concern. Our Attorney told us that whoever owns it is responsible for it and we're saying nobody owns it so in that case nobody's responsible for it. I Roger Bryne: It's been working for 30 years. There's no reason it's can't work for another 30 years. You're not responsible for it, why should you worry? Councilman Horn: We have more Attorneys in the world today. Y Roger Bryne: If you don't own it, you're not responsible. The City is not , responsible is what he said. Why worry about it? Let whoever owns it worry about it. Councilman Horn: Co you agree with that? ' Roger Knutson: If you think it's a nuisance or it could cause problems, I think you have perhaps an obligation to consider the public good. I'd be more worried [11 and concerned, if it is a legitinate concern, about someone getting hurt rather than who's going to pay the bill. You're heavily insured for this sort of thing. ' Roger Bryne: I don't have a problem with owning the raft. If you want to say I own it, that's fine. I'm not ducking ownership by reason of worrying about liability. The only reason I say I don't own it is because I know everybody in Carver Beach owns that raft. Everyone in the world has the right to use that raft as far as everybody in Carver Beach is concerned. That's why you got that petition and we got 265 names on it. I can get 500 to 600 more real easily if I wanted to do some more hiking, which I got tired of. Everybody I contacted said, yes sounds good. Why would they want to take that away? That's crazy. Councilman Horn: We don't want you to be liable for something that everybody uses either. My point is, I don't think Park and Rec was aware until recently, at least from the Minutes I read, that that was a public beach. Is that true rue Lori Sietsema: The current Park and Recreation Commission was unsure of how that mini-beach got there. Researching the file, it was approved by a former Park and Recreation Commission. Councilman Horn: I think that was a surprise to a lot of us. But it seems to me that now that Park and Rec is aware of it, that's what it is, we should have a plan from them as to how they intend to use it and then I'd be much more comfortable if we included a raft out there. If we were going to do that, that the City maintain it and keep it up rather than making some private individual 12 , City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 responsible for it. I'm uncomfortable. I don't think that's fair to him. IIThat's all I have on this issue. Councilman Boyt: Well, Clark once again we're going to agree. First, it's my understanding that Park and Rec did discuss this issue? Just to clear that up and that a couple of comments came out there about the concern about whether it was in fact being treated as a public beach. Would like to see that if we're going to keep this piece of property, and I assume we are, that the City has an ' obligation to make sure that it's a safe and useable piece of property. To do that, there's a couple things that I would like Park and Rec, I guess basically I can just say I'd like than to look at that issue and come back with a recommendation. I personally have concern that as I read the ordinance now, ' it's not possible for anybody, Minneapolis, Chanhassen, Chaska, anybody to put a raft in any lake that we've got and leave it. They have to put their name on it, if they were conforming with the City ordinance but once they did that, we ' could have 100 rafts or we could have one raft. We have no control. Is that your understanding of the ordinance? ' Jo Ann Olsen: You have to be a lakeshore owner to do that but.. . Councilman Boyt: So it is limited? ' Barbara Dacy: What we're adding is that in addition to being a lakeshore owner, you have to have a home on the property. Jo Ann Olsen: And it has to be in front of your property. The way it is right now, if you have lakeshore on Lotus, you can actually moor on Minnewashta. Councilman Boyt: You could moor on any other lake. Once you're a lake owner, you have this tremendous right to put it up anywhere but if you're not a lake owner, you can't? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Well, I think we have 250 signatures of people that say they want to use it and if we're right to say we've got potentially more people who would use it, then Park and Rec should certainly look at how we can make best use of this piece of property and it sounds like establishing some sort of swimming beach even though it's not very far away from one we just established. It might be reasonable. I think that we should definitely put signs up there that this is a public beach and that we should certainly look at how we can provide parking. I understand that's going to be a bit of a problem but if it's going to be a public beach, we need to have parking and we need to have it clearly signed that it is such. On the raft, my position would be on all rafts, that if they're not owned by the City, they have to be out in front of a person's piece of property where they can be properly supervised. I don't want rafts that are unsupervised on our lakes. If it is the City's, then it would go without saying, I suspect, that the City would put it out in front of a piece of City property. Then in terms of, I want to be certain that we're setting a situation here that isn't so specific that it just limits boats or rafts and really should be talking about private property. That we should have no storage of private property on public property. We have a responsibility to protect public property and be sure that it has public use and private property is not part of that. There should be no anchoring of private property outside of areas I 13 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 that are owned by and directly under control of the person who has that anchorage. However, there's an interesting point that was brought up here by I think Mr. Schroeder when I talked to him over the phone. The DNR I gather had plans to put 10 boats on Lotus Lake with public moorings. Does staff know anything about that? Barbara Dacy: Not to my knowledge. Mrs. Schroeder: When we purchased our home, this is what we were told by the DNR that there would be 10 permits issued for the west side of Lotus Lake. Barbara Dacy: And when did you purchase your home? Mrs. Schroeder: Two years ago. So we applied for a response. PA permit and never got a Barbara Dacy: That can certainly be checked. Councilman Boyt: This opens up a process that I had never even considered and that's public mooring places on our lakes. I don't know, since we don't have a system in place to do that, it's a little bit of a scary idea to turn up and yet I think the City should probably look at it and find out just what's going on here. Apparently the County has a right to grant these and the County accepted your application but never sent you a response? Mrs. Schroeder: Correct. ' Councilman Boyt: So maybe nobody wants to deal with this issue but I think if we're going to, very wary of creating a situation in which one person has access to mooring because they took action and nobody else has access and we now effectively limit anybody else from getting it. I think we should research the issue and maybe Park and Rec would be the logical place to do that since we're talking about a recreational activity. No matter who owns that raft, it needs to be maintained in safe operating conditions and I think that needs to be the case for all rafts, docks and what not in public waters. They're too attractive for other people to come, stop by and use. I'm basically in agreement with the ordinance as stated but I want to be sure that when we do it, we're not losing the public's long standing right to use that beach. That we're simply making it a safe use of the beach and we're making it a public use of the beach and not a private homeowner's beach. That's all I've got for now. Mayor Hamilton: There seems to be agreement, it's incredible but there is. There seems to also have been a long standing tug of way going on within the ' community between the people who live on the lake and the people who do not. That tug of way continues today by some who live on the lake to keep those who do not live on the lake off the lake. I think it's really unfortunate since the lakes belong to everybody in the community. We should all have the right to use them so I think really what Bill and what Jay and Clark have been saying is that, instead of legislating it and trying to keep people off and to keep kids out of the swimming holes they've been using for 30 years, we ought to try to 111 work and come up with something that's useable and workable for all the residents. Something that's reasonable. I think as a part of that, the City needs to look at what lakeshore we have, and we do have quite a bit of it, and we need to sign that as city property and if we so designate it as a beach, then 14 , City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ° t fine. We'll call it a beach. Then we need to take the raft that's there out and put in a raft that's in good repair and can be used by everybody without III worrying about kids stepping on nails or something else happening. A board coming off. We need to sign it so we say no diving. If you want to jump off the raft, that's fine but we need to be also sure that the water's deep enough so even jumping in, somebody's not going to become injured. We need to sign it Ito say that there are no lifeguards on duty and that you're using it at your own risk, even though it is a city park. I think for the beaches, those are the kinds of things we need to look at and I agree, I think the Park and Recreation II Commission should look at all the land that the City owns and what potential use we have of that land. Is there one beach or are there 6 beaches that have potential use? As far as mooring boats, Bill mentioned the possibility of permits and that the County does issue permits. However, in the past when this II issue has come up and people have gone to the County and asked for a permit, the County has been relunctant to give a permit unless the City is willing to approve it so you're kind of chasing your tail on this issue. Nobody will issue I the permit. We've always worked closely with the County and if we felt a permit shouldn't be issued, we've told them that and they haven't issued the permit. But I think along with designating where the City property is and signing it, we I also need to think of a permit process. Where can we put out mooring buoys so people can put a sailboat out or put a canoe out. Put a fishing boat out and have a permit process that people can come in, get a permit to put their boat in and they can leave it there all year so people who do not live on the lake, have Ian opportunity to use the lake. That entrails a whole lengthy process of looking at what can be moored at those buoys and for how long do you have it and when is your permit up and all this kind of thing but I think it's something I that we need. It's time for us to go through this issue. It raised it's head about 6-7 years ago and now it's here again and it's time to do something - positive about it. I think a permitting process would be good and it's something that we need and I think it can be workable. They do it on Lake I Minnetonka and you look at how Minneapolis does it on the city's lakes. It works out very well for them. It's a little different situation. You don't have people living on the lake with lakeshore access but people use the lake l so I think there are, unless the ordinance says in effect that we can use in doing a lot of information off of, so I would charge the Park and Rec Commission - and Lori to move ahead with this item and put it back on your agenda at your II earliest possible convenience. With that, I guess I'd like to see us table this until such time that we have additional information back and can take positive steps to make the corrections that are needed. 1 Councilman Boyt: Before we reach a second to that table, I would like to see you add that the Attorney be directed to reach a finding in support of this ordinance because I think we're probably going to be challenged by somebody and III'd like to know what our legal grounds are before we launch into it. Councilman Horn: We certainly aren't setting any precedent with this. Many II other cities have ordinances like this. As a matter of fact, the beachlot ordinance was structured very much after the White Bear Lake conservation district beach ordinance. White Bear Lake also has an ordinance similiar to this for other structures on the lake. In fact it does require that the II setback, similar to a zoning ordinance, in using it. The purpose of these is to resolve neighbor disputes. That's why it was generated in White Bear Lake because two neighbors, if the lakeshore was straight, things would be very IIsimple but lakeshore goes like this and somebody assumes that the lot lines 15 II City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 don't always run parallel with the lot lines on shore and that's why these ordinances were put into effect. I don't think there should be any problem legally if we enacted something like this.' Mayor Hamilton: Except I would like to be sure that as the Park and Rec Commission works with the lakeshore and the property that the City owns, they may want to add to this ordinance. They may want to change some things that are proposed in here and I think they should have that latitude to look at this and see how it's going to fit in with what they're going to attempt to do. I think for us to say this is what we want right now, might be a little premature. Let them take this and say it's something that perhaps we support but massage it as you go along and see if you can't work some of the kinks out. Either add to it or take away from it so it works out best for everyone. Councilman Boyt: And you're also suggesting then that we be sure that ' White Bear Lake ordinance to use as a model? hat they have Mayor Hamilton: I think they should use that and they should talk to Minneapolis, and talk to Minnetonka and see how they regulate moorings on their lakes. Councilman Horn: Minnetonka and White Bear Lake are ' districts. Their ordinances were very similar. The both conservation primary purpose again for that, as it was structured there, was not so much a lakeowner versus a non-lake owner, it was mitigating a problem that came up between adjacent lake owners. That was the primary impetus. Mayor Hamilton: Eden Prairie may have information also. They have several [11 lakes. Councilman Johnson: From my visits out there this summer, I've seen very few boats moored along there as far as existing moorings that this ordinance would be taking away. As far as boats being pulled up along the shore, that's something different and that's what I would like to see taken away. I think where we stand, the hardest place we stand as far as being sued or whatever, is the people who had a house there and have had a mooring buoy out and a boat attached to a mooring buoy all along, not sitting up on City property but actually attached to the mooring buoy. I'd like to know how many of those there are there that have been doing that over the last few years and I think that this is a good area that we could put in a few public mooring buoys. I don't know how much in a lottery or whatever, to get to them because I personally, if I owned a boat would like to have a place where I could put it without having to be a lakeshore owner. I don't own a boat though but I'd like the Park and Rec to look into the ability to, and this would really give us control over the public mooring of non-lake owner boats here. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what I charged them to do. Are you in agreement that we leave the ordinance? I would then move that we table this item until the Park and Rec Commission can review it and bring it back to us. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the amendment ' to Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding boat moorings and swimming rafts until the Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the item. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 , '_4:_'L City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF DOGWOOD ROAD ABUTTING WOODCREST IIIADDITION AND TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, R & R LAND VENTURES. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Resolution #88-92: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Vacation Request #86-6 to vacate a portion of Dogwood Road abutting Lots 2810-2847, subject to a retaining a 20 foot drainage and utility easement in the aforementioned lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL AND FIRE STATION EXPANSION. Councilman Boyt: Gary, as I recall, in some of the other contracted works, that 10% contingency fee has been a number I've come across. I see this as a 7% fee. Aren't we safer to set up a contingency between 10% and 15%? ' Gary Warren: Actually contingencies have gone from zero to 15%. You're talking about contingencies regarding budgets? It depends on how much risk we think we have. ...that's appropriate. 10, we'd be more concerned. Councilman Boyt: It's not money we're losing and I'd sure hate to spend the rest of it and come back and say where are we going to find? ' Gary Warren: You've got a contract estimate here. What we have, even above and beyond 7% in the City budget is different. Maybe he's overstepping his bounds there giving us a recommendation in that regard. We have our own fund that's been set up for that. We don't take the 7% and set it aside, we're working from our already established fund. Councilman Boyt: Except I've got some uses for some of the other money. Maybe ' that's more the point. I want to be sure we protect enough so we've got the funds we need. It seems to me that we talked about the ventilation system and clearly those of us who spend any time in this chamber realize the ventilation system is in dire need but there's another item that's in need and that's the sound system. I don't know why we can't fix the sound system but it occurs to me that it's very easy to sit in the back of the Council chambers and now know what's going on because you just can't hear that well. Mayor Hamilton: I think I mentioned Bill, you're saying you want to have some of the funds to redo the chambers. That was something I presented a long time ago along with the initial plans with the city. I wanted for the expansion, I wanted to have the chambers here redone because I've never been satisfied with them. I think they were poorly done in the first place and we could use to redo them here very nicely. I agree with you. Not just the sound system but we need to redo a lot of things here. Councilman Johnson: It's not only the sound system that provides some of the acoustical problems of the room. It's the design of the room. We need an ' 17 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 11 acoustical engineer to look at this room. Councilman Boyt: We just need to tear it out. Mayor Hamilton: Right, basically start over. Councilman Boyt: So I'd like to see us earmark funds to make progress in that direction. I don't know if there's enough money here to really do everything we want to do but I don't want to see us continue with what we have now. Councilman Horn: It'd be nice once to see us spend less even when we get a windfall rather than trying to find other ways to come up to spend the whole thing. I'd like to see us save money once in a couple of these projects. I Resolution #88-93: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded that the City Hall expansion and Fire Station expansion and remodeling be awarded to Adolfson and Peterson, Inc. for a combined base bid of $1,249,200.00 and that the City accept City Hall Alternatives 1, 4 and 5. The total award bid to Adolfson and Peterson, Inc. for the combined City Hall and Fire Station construction with the alternatives as indicated to $1,276,800.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. TH 101 REALIGNMENT, UPDATE. Mayor Hamilton: For those of you who are here for this particular item, please realize this is strictly an update. We're just getting additional information , from the folks who are doing some additional consulting work and there's going to be no decision made on any route tonight. Fred, are you the primary presenter here this evening? i Fred Hoisington: We don't want to spend a lot of your time this evening because a lot of the things that have been done in the past 2 weeks since we were last here, are rather intangibles. They're things that we can't really show you and won't until we can actually do a tabulation or matrix kind of presentation and that will come on the 26th. The biggest portion of the job is still to be done. I shouldn't say still to be done. A great deal of it has been done already. The traffic analysis itself, but that is the biggest element of the analysis and the part that Mr. Benshoof has been just cramming his computer with over the past 2 weeks and will continue to do so until about the 19th at which time w� ' expect to at least have a preliminary report done. Meet with MnDot soon thereafter and back to you on the 26th and hopefully have everybody pulled together so if we aren't able to make a decision, we're very close to being able to make a decision at that point. We'd like to do a couple things tonight though. The first of which is to look over the evaluation criteria that is, at least at this point, we are using to evaluate 7 different alternatives and then we'd like to run over the 7 alternatives very briefly. We're kind of committed to these alternatives now. They're basically the same ones you've seen, that you saw last time, with a couple of minor modifications. Howard Preston from BRW is going to run through those for us this evening. What I'd like to do first Barbara is, would you put up the criteria or at least the first stab at II criteria? We are looking for input from the City Council with regard to the 15 that we have identified and the way we identified them was through all of the neighborhood meetings. The business persons meetings and so forth, that we've 18 , I , City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I- had over the past several weeks. Some of than relate to engineering ineeri_n kinds of things. Others relate to public concerns. Others to purely traffic kinds of concerns but as of now, we've identified these 15 and we would appreciate or expect you to input to us by either suggesting we eliminate or add to this list. Let me go through than just briefly. The TH 101 continuity, what we're thinking 1 of there is that in the ideal situation, a TH 101 or any State trunk highway would not have right angle turns in it. It doesn't mean we're goign to have the ideal situation here but obviously if we use TH 5 as a common link with TH 101, we are going to have the continuity criterion would not be met because of the I right angle turns that would be necessary from that roadway. A key factor or a key criterion will be number 2, the levels of surface at key intersections. Unless we can achieve certain levels of service, somewhere in the D area, the II level of service D, MnDot isn't going to be too happy with us so that's going to be an extremely important one that we meet in the best possible fashion. The third would be traffic safety. In other words, that's geometry. Are the curves II correct? Do they require super? If so, can we maintain all of the required geometry and sound engineering standards in the design? The fourth criterion of separation of through from downtown traffic. Fairly clear. Either we accomplish the separation or we don't. Downtown accessibilty, which has been a II concern all along. Whether we will maintain good accessibility for those wishing to get downtown. Number 6, other business and property accessibility. Are we taking anything away from some properties as a result of any of the II alternatives? And residential accessibility as well. Do the people who live in the subdivisions to the south for example, have at least equal access to the highway system and to downtown as they presently have? Number 8, pedestrian II safety. We've spent quite a bit of time on. Given the several alternatives, we'll be looking at which ones provide the best access to downtown. Not only including TH 101 but TH 5. Then residential impacts. There we're primarily talking about noise, traffic in closer proximity to residential areas. Noise is II one of the things that we can at least reasonably measure and make comparisons for and that's one that's been mentioned on a number occasions by the residents who live in that area. Project costs and fiscal responsibility. There is a II great deal of variety or a grear range of possible construction or project costs, in this case, in that we could have one let's say that could range as low as $300,000.00 and another one that could range as high as 3 million dollars. We don't know that yet because we haven't assessed the cost but we're in the II process of doing that. Of course, it's all a product of right-of-way acquisition and construction and whether we're duplicating roadway segments and so forth. What we're trying to structure there is something around the mean I project cost. Something within a certain distance one way or the other as a criterion. If it's within that range, then it would be acceptable. If it's above that, then perhaps it would not be. Acceptance by MnDot. A criterion II that almost could be dropped out of the list because if it isn't acceptable to MnDot, maybe it makes a little sense to have it in there so probably number 11 could be dropped out entirely and is more a given that it has to be acceptable to MnDot. The ability to meet the accelerated TH 5 schedule. We're II still assuming that we are on that schedule and that we will stay on that schedule with whatever changes we might make that would have an effect on TH 5. Environmental impacts, primarly wetlands. Development impacts, are we taking more right-of-way than we really need and are we taking more land off the tax I rolls than we really need to to accomodate the traffic needs of TH 101? Of 1 course, an important criterion in the public's acceptance of the alternatives t. and I'm sure through the public hearing process we'll have a good sense for IIwhere the support is and where the support isn't for the various of the I 19 City Council Meetin September g - p 12, 1988 alternatives that are being suggested for evaluation. Now, before we go into another quick look at the alternatives. I would just open to questions or suggestions or ideas having to do with the criteria and if there are none, we can more right onto the alternatives. Councilman Boyt: I'm understanding that you don't have these in a priority , order. Fred Hoisington: These are not in priority. These are strictly random at this point. Councilman Horn: Number one, I would suggest that even though these aren't in priority ratings, that an importance rating be put on each of these criteria. I don't believe they all have the same weight and I think they should be weighted and I would have liked to have seen that for your presentation this evening. We could have discussed our agreement on the rating. The other thing that I think has to happen is that when you apply each of the alternatives to these criteria, they have to be done in terms of how well they meet each of these criteria. Then you take the rating of each one times how well it meets the criteria for the score and that's how you come up with a more objective criteria which adds priority to it. The other thing, it's probably in here someplace but it wasn't clear enough so that I could pick it out and that was minimizing the impact to through traffic on TH 5. Now is that included in any of these others in a subtle way that I missed? Fred Hoisington: Minimizing which Clark? ' Councilman Horn: Minimizing the impact to TH 5 recognizing that that is the major concern that we have is getting traffic through on TH 5. TH 101 is an important issue but it doesn't overshadow TH 5. Fred Hoisington: That would be included under number, primarily the level of service criteria number 2. If those work, then MnDot will consider TH 5 as functioning well enough to have the common leg if that proves to be one that's workable. Councilman Horn: So when you're talking about levels of service at key intersections, you're not just talking about how well the intersection works? You're talking about the overall flow on the total thoroughway itself. Fred Hoisington: The real test of a highway and how well it functions are it's intersections. In essense, if the intersection functions, the flow of the entire leg or segment will also function. In essence, we're talking about the entire flow, that is correct. Good point though. Excellent point on the weighting and we thought about bringing a weighting to you but we can score the alternatives without any difficulty at all but we have difficulty with weighting because we don't know what the Council weights might need to be. What we can do is we can work out something so we can give you that opportunity the next time we're here. We could go so far as to suggest some weighting but I'm not sure I would be so presumptuous as to think that I could necessarily do that. Would you want us to bring something that would allow you to do that perhaps next time? 20 ' City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 II J_4 Mayor Hamilton: I think you need to have some musts and wants and then weights within your musts and wants because you've got two different categories there to IIbegin with and then there's going to be weights within those categories. I don't see any reason why you couldn't suggest some based on your feeling for than and give us a starting point so we can all look at them and try to manipulate them however to a point where we're all comfortable with them. ' Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we could give him a good I came with my top 3, 4 5. After that I quit because those were sthe t tonight. ones that were most important to me. Mayor Hamilton: I didn't weight them. I guess I could pick out the musts and ' wants but I guess I wasn't prepared to do that this evening. I'd rather have it presented so I'd have some time to sit and work on that alone. I don't see any reason why we need to do that tonight. ' Fred Hoisington: We can make some suggestions if you care to. Councilman Johnson: I actually have one I'd like to add which is separation of residential neighborhoods from state highways which is one of the things we're trying to achieve on the north side. You're running a state highway through. .. ' Mayor Hamilton: 9, 13 and 15 pretty well cover it. Councilman Johnson: I was thinking residential impacts, as he introduced it, as residential.. . I _ Mayor Hamilton: If you add one word there, minimize residential impacts. ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. I do see the difference between an engineer's rating and a politician's rating of the importance of these various criteria. As I've heard the engineers talk about the continuity of TH 101 being so important and I don't have a heck of a lot of feel for the importance of continuity of TH 101 ' when you go several miles out of your way on TH 12 to get to it and everyplace else on TH 101. That's never going to be fixed either. Not that we should make it any worse than it is but it couldn't get any worse. If we rerouted it on TH ' 5, it would be better than it now being rerouted past the grade school. Fred Hoisington: Jay, let me just say that you don't have to worry about the ' engineer's weighting. All you have to do is worry about what the politician's weighting but the planner is going to do it and you know, they just can't miss in that respect. ' Councilman Johnson: I've got to check to see if my boots are on. Fred Hoisington: I think you've given us good direction with regard to the criteria. What we'd like to do then is to very briefly run through the 7 alternatives that we have and I'd like Howard Preston, who is BRW's in-house project manager for this project, to run through those alternatives for you. Howard Preston: Since the last meeting we've been doing a number of things. One is developing some additional alternatives and taking a look at the alternatives we presented at the last time and refining the design slightly. So what we have to show you this evening is in the packet that's been passed out. I'll just ' 21 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 take a few minutes to go through each of these. Just basically to start, there's two points to keep in mind. One of the things, work task that we've gone through since the last meeting was we take a look at the geometrics. Getting a loot at item 3 on Fred's evaluation list. Taking a look at the geometrics and it appears that all of these alternatives are substantial conformance with MnDot's design guides. We haven't done detailed design work yet so I don't know that all of the items that would be included in any one of these when the detail is on it but in fact every item will in fact, it appears they are all in substantial conformance with the design guides. The second item, ..other issues which is the environmental issues, we looked at an alternative alignment that would pull Lake Drive south of the wetland and ponding area. We haven't done a complete environmental analysis but it appears that either one of these alternatives would work. Either north of the pond or south and that's something that could be negotiated with the Rosemount people during their development process so I think that leaves the City some flexibility to go either way. The first alternative is number 1 in all the packets that I handed out, is simply this is what's in MnDot's plan at the present time. It maintains a full intersection at Dakota and has a full intersection at Great Plains. It has a right-in/right-out intersection at Park. That's what's in MnDot's plan right now. The second alternative was new. It's something that you haven't ' seen before. Basically, for lack of a better name, call this the Dakota Avenue alternative. What we've done is we've created a full access intersection at Dakota. That was one of the comments that was presented or discussed the last time because of the commercial development on the south side of TH 5. What could be done to provide full access at that location? So this one provides a full access intersection at Dakota. It brings TH 101, the north leg down to line up opposite the existing Dakota Avenue intersection. The next intersection then is at Great Plains Blvd.. We would propose a full access intersection at Market and then the connection of Lake Drive through the Rosemount property across the Ward property to hook up with take Drive's present location. So this is a new alternative. The third alternative is pretty much the same as the one that was presented earlier. It has some Lake Drive alternative. The intersection of Dakota is restricted to the right turn is headed out. The new TH 101 that was brought kind of down to the Lake Drive alignment and then heads south to the Ward property and again the connection to Lake Drive through the Rosemount property so this is pretty much the same as what was presented. Councilman Johnson: Does that maintain where you can come in TH 5, take a right in to the north, go across the tracks and into downtown in that direction? Howard Preston: I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Take a right off of. .. Councilman Johnson: Dakota. Howard Preston: Correct. Councilman Johnson: Why would we maintain that railroad crossing at that point and add another one just down the road from it? Howard Preston: The answer would be to maintain the continuity of West 78th Street. I'm not sure, there was another reason but that was part of the original proposal. The fourth alternative is also an alternative that you've seen before that brought the TH 101 realignment and a new alignment and basically to that commercial property to the site where VFW is behind the 22 , City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I ) i commecial that sat at Lake Drive and Great Plains Blvd., then swings the alignment down south through the Ward property in the general direction of Lake II Drive East. This is also something that was presented earlier. The fifth alternative is what was previously referred to as the north leg option where the north leg of TH 101 is intercepted with TH 5 and then we move to continue on II TH 101 would be through the reappointed boulevard intersection and that would continue on. This is the alternative that would require the common section on TH 5 between existing TH 101 to the south and the new north leg. I think the only item that might be different is at one time there was talk of connection I and we didn't provide that connection... The sixth alternative is what we previously called the Market Blvd. alternative that brings the south leg of TH 101 up to connect with Market Blvd. to the north. It has the north leg of 1 TH 101 going away at that particular location, it provides for a right turns in and out at Dakota. A T intersection here at the new north leg. A full access intersection at Great Plains and the idea is to get the present alignment of TH 101 that is through the Ward property here would be removed and the TH 101 Isouth leg would be opposite of Market Blvd.. So this is pretty much again the same as what was presented earlier. The last alternative is a variation of Market Blvd. alternative. We have the south leg of Great Plains Blvd. south of 1 TH 5 would be eliminated and there would be connections opposite the north leg of TH 101 down...so there would be some access provided between TH 5 and Lake Drive with access in back of the commercial area on Dakota. So those briefly II are the 7 alternatives that we will be evaluating on the present evaluation criteria. lit Fred Hoisington: Just a couple of comments, Howard already covered having to do with ones that represent changes or differences from what we have seem before. The second alternative, the Dakota Avenue alternative is one that of course has been considerd many times in the past. It's a matter of cost and one of the II things that triggered that alternative was Clark's concern last time that we should not have excluded any on the basis of cost. At least not up until this time so we went back and we said perhaps we should at least keep that one open. It does keep everything else pretty much in place but there could be some rather 1 high costs associated with it. The last alternative, number 7. . . Mayor Hamilton: Before you go that Fred. Number 2 here, where then does the II flow of TH 101 traffic go? Is it using TH 5 or you're still going down 78th Street? You're going to use TH 5? I Fred Hoisington: You would have a common section. The common section from here to here but the advantage here is that now you have a greater separation and probably more acceptable to MnDot if we have a short separation. I Councilman Boyt: I have a question about this one. Then what you're saying, since we're keeping basically all the roadways open that are open now, we're straightening out where TH 5 joins TH 101 or TH 101 joins TH 5 but we haven't I shut any roadways off. What's going to draw people on TH 101 to use TH 5? Why don't they just continue to stay on West 78th Street? Fred Hoisington: You come down TH 101 in this fashion. It will be the perception, in fact more than just perception. It will take longer for them to take this than the other one. Therefore, they will need to use this one before t-- the other leg. I 23 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 1 Councilman Boyt: Tell me about going across Dakota and using Lake Drive East. Will it keep them off that? Fred Hoisington: I think it's the same kind of situation. Both 78th Street and Lake Drive are 30 mph city streets. The speed limit on TH 5 will be 55 mph that people will perceive that it is quicker to get between the two points at 55 mph than 30 mph with stop signs at various locations. Councilman Boyt: I'm not convinced but I understand your point. ' Fred Hoisington: The important thing is that there are trade-offs. This one has some rather high costs potentially to put the alignment in this location. At the same time, we don't know the flow of traffic in that. .. We'll know that when we come back to you next time. The other alternative is kind of different. It's the last alternative and what this represents is a local connection in her and as Howard indicated, would allow us to eliminate this one. We're not suggesting that it works better but there could be some confusion of people using TH 101 in this fashion and mistaking this for the turn that keeps them on TH 101. We're simply testing it to see how it works. This leg may not work but at least for the time being we felt we had to add one in and take a look at that. Howard Preston: The purpose of that connection is simply to provide some additional access to the commercial properties that fronted along Lake Drive and it also gives an access back to the commercial properties...so it's primarily a local access function. I know you seemed a little skeptical before but I think the ideas that there were stop signs along here and the design is obviously a city street as opposed to an arterial trunk highway. I would think most through trips that don't have an origin or destination, were down in this area, would choose TH 5 as the preferred alternative. I think most trips would. That's not guaranteeing that all of them would but most of them would. Fred Hoisington: The only thing that I guess we might entertain is, we know 1 that Bill would like to suggest maybe 3 or 4 of these have more significance than others. If there are any directions you could give us right now, that would suggest that, we'd be more than happy to take your suggestions. 1 Councilman Boyt: If I could use that as an opportunity to say something about this. First, you need to know the weighting of these once and which ones, if any, are musts. And you've got to know the musts before you can do anything else. Now you've got the objectives down, if we don't add any to these tonight, I would think the first goal would be to determine what the musts are and throw out any of those alternatives that don't match them. Save yourself some time and save the City some money. Other than doing that, I don't know, although I'd like to, I don't know how I can throw out alternatives until I know what the musts are. I can tell you right off hand that my most important, I don't think they're musts because I'll let the State and you guys decide those, but for me the most important objective is number 12, the ability to meet the accelerated TH 5 schedule. I don't know that that's a must but it's dog gone important. The second one is residential impact. To me personally, that's the second most important non-must on the list and I think it's going to have a lot of say with which of these alternatives survives. Then I drop down to the traffic safety design standards which I tied in with the level of service at key intersections. All of one. Those were my top three. I had environmental 24 ICity Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 II -- impacts next but I think if you can take into account, for me, those three and how the alternatives fit those, it will help me make a decision about which one is a better. I think they're all important. I think you did a nice job of establishing the criteria. I Mayor Hamilton: I think rather than trying to satisfy each one of us individually, you need to apply some weights. Some musts and wants and weights to the criteria that's been established and then apply them to each one of the alternatives before us so that we can review those collectively. Not II individually and then decide which ones meet our criteria the best. I don't think we can throw any out until we've done that. I Councilman Boyt: I agree with your last point. They're not in the best position to weight these. Councilman Horn: They're not going to weight. We're going to weight these. I They're going to evaluate each of these alternatives against these criteria. We will weight the priority of the criteria. I Councilman Boyt: Do all the alternatives meet your musts, as you understand them? Is that how you started the presentation tonight? All 7 of these will fly? IHoward Preston: Based on the level of detail that we have here, appear to be in substantial conformance with the DOT's design standards. None of them have any I i glaring deficiencies. There could be some exceptions later on when we get into the detailed design but they're not apparent ones. If approved, they could all meet their design limits. II Mayor Hamilton: I think what we had said earlier is that we allow them to establish some weighting to these numbers. They haven't been doing this in a vaccum so they have some idea what the weights should be on these. Bring them II back to us so we can do some fine tuning but I would suspect that they're going to be very close to what our own is going to be. Then apply those weights to each alternative. Then some will drop out. II Councilman Horn: I see the same process we used earlier in our session to determine what the City's priorities were in general. We all took our weighted scores of each and I think we can come up with a composite of all of our II priorities and come up with a consensus of that. I think that's a good procedure to use. II Councilman Boyt: I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that it's a procedure that, I think we run the risk, if we know how these alternatives match the criteria, that we'll weight the criteria to get the alternative we want. Why not just weight the criteria and turn them loose? IFred Hoisington: Could I suggest this? It's very difficult to do that in a group session. It can be done very well if you were to do this. If you were to IIItake that list and give me your weightings. Not ratings now. I'm looking for weightings and the maximum number is 100 so all you get is 100. You can attach all 100 to one of them. You can attach 10 to every one of them or however it 3-- works out so you not exceed 100 and then what we can do is we can put them down IIon a composite sheet and do some averaging across. I suspect we're not going to II 25 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 see a great deal of disparity there and we'll come back to , you next time. If you could send those to us, then we could show you what you came up with. Councilman Horn: You were going to take out number 11 right? Fred Hoisington: I'm going to take off number 11. Does that sound like an acceptable way to deal with that? Mayor Hamilton: Co we need to go with 100? It seems like 10 tops would make it easier to do the weighting. Councilman Boyt: The system that I know that I know is easy to use is to use 5 because basically most of us can differentiate about 15% or 20% difference between these and not 1% difference between them. If you've got 10 fives on there, give them all 5. If you've got 3, the most important is 5, least important is a 1 or a zero. 1 Fred Hoisington: I'm looking for something that shows relative weights in this case. Councilman Boyt: That would because if you've got all of them fives, you're saying they're all equally important to you. Fred Hoisington: You're doing the same thing we are. Councilman Boyt: I'm just dropping you down from 100 to 5. I can count 5 [II easily. Councilman Johnson: His system, everybody would end up at a total score of 100 if you added them all up. Fred Hoisington: Let's say you have 7 criteria that you feel are good, have some weight here. Councilman Boyt: I'm not rating. I don't have to have only one top one. I can have 2 or 3 that equally important to me. Give them all fives. Give all three of those fives. Fred Hoisington: What you're doing is ranking. Councilman Boyt: We don't need to discuss it now. Fred Hoisington: But the key thing is that you all have to do it the same or I can't. .. Mayor Hamilton: We've had a weighting system that we've used earlier and Don has that and I would suspect that Don could go back and dig that out and refine it and send it out to us so we can all understand it rather than sitting here all night debating. Fred Hoisington: If you could send that to us as soon as possible. Mayor Hamilton: Don will get it out to us with a letter of explanation and then we can apply that so it will work out well. Okay, Fred did you have anything 26 1 IICity Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 1 else you wanted to present us? Did the residents here have any questions you wanted to ask of Fred? IF Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm with the Blue Circle Investment Company. We have the commercial property at Lake Drive and TH 101. I'm a little confused I by a couple of things that were said. In regards to TH 101 continuity, you said something about right angle turns on TH 101 using right angle turns is not real acceptable. If I understand the proposal that you're routing onto TH 5 is going to in some places have a right angle turn. Is that correct? IIFred Hoisington: For example, this alternative for TH 101 would have a right turn and then a left turn, in other words, 90 degree turns. Whereas the I alternatives, this one for example, would be continuous because there are no right angle turns so that would be the only distinction. Pat Hallisey: That is not using TH 5. IFred Hoisington: No, it isn't. That's correct. 1 Pat Hallisey: I think if I saw all of those plans correctly, everything that put TH 101 onto TH 5 had a right angle turn. IFred Hoisington: Exactly. Pat Hallisey: So any proposal would put TH 101 on TH 5 as a right angle turn and that's not necessarily very good from a design standpoint? '' Fred Hoisington: I think what we decided in this process is that, that's probably not unacceptable. It's not ideal, would be a better way to say it. IIPat Hallisey: My other question was, you keep referring to the Dakota Avenue intersection there to some extremely high costs. Can you tell me what those high costs are and how they're high in relationship to the other alternatives? IFred Hoisington: I would only say that the. . .is an already existin g building. buildin g Whereas other cases you do not have to take buildings.. . IIat Hallisey: You'd be taking the apartment building north of TH 101 and TH 5? II Fred Hoisi.ngton: We're still looking at alternatives that wouldn't take too much. It's conceivable that we could get an alignment. Pat Hallisey: But it's basically a property acquisition costs? IFred Hoisi.ngton: Yes. I Pat Hallisey: I just wanted to ask the Council if they received the letter that we had written regarding our concerns? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. IF i Resident: Regarding the Great Plains Blvd., why wouldn't you just eliminate II that and/or make that a right-in/right-out and eliminate that land there? That seems to me that the more...you put down TH 5, where you're going to hang up II 27 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 traffic. The other thing is, what is the distance between Great Plains and Market Blvd. in terms of feet? Fred Hoisington: It's about 1,900. Resident: Okay, so it's just barely over the limit? 700 feet. Fred Hoisington: Yes. Resident: That's not very far when you're traveling at 55 mph. Why that one? Somebody asked about the proposals. You could eliminate that because if you put...there's no reason to have this. You could simply take that right-in/ right-out on both sides and then eliminate the intersection altogether. A cul-de-sac on the one end and just leave it open on the other. Howard Preston: That's something that we thought about. In fact I think that's come up several times in the coversations. Basically it's the desire to provide enough access. I'm not sure exactly what the right definition of enough is but enough access...that if this intersection were only right-in/right-out, that would not provide enough access to ,downtown off of TH 5 after the City has gone through all the efforts to redeveloping it's downtown area. Resident: We have Market Blvd.. You have Dakota. This proposal on the bottom down here, do we really need three in a space of, what is that distance, 3,000 feet? Howard Preston: Need? I don't think it's a need as much as it is perception. ' There was one issue or one reason that came up that indicated that it would improve one situation to keep that open. What was happening is that you were looking at levels of service 20 years out. Basically when the City is fully developed and in a number of intersections that.. .putting more and more traffic on the ones that exist and you would have. ..problems at intersections. I have an additional intersection open that seemed to pull some traffic away from some of the other ones and even the traffic volumes out of all the intersections... So there appears to be, that was the one reason that it was seen as preferable to have a linear section possible with access on but the other reason is we were trying to keep that at a minimum. You're absolutely correct, the more lights, the more traffic signals there are, the more potential for congestion and the harder it is to get through this whole area. Resident: I guess as a resident of the community who unfortunately has to ' travel TH 5 everyday, both going and coming from work, I'd like to see as many lights eliminated along TH 5 as possible. If that means having to wait in line to get in and out here, that's fine because I can get to my destination quicker and not be sitting in stop and go traffic. Mayor Hamilton: I think we all have the same concern and I guess we need to move on. Mark Ei.dem: The Dakota Avenue intersection, it came to my attention that that light system was bought and paid for by the Association 9 years ago as a safe crossing. Mayor Hamilton: That's not correct. 28 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mark Eidem: It is according to those who dug them out at our annual meeting. Their concern is, on many of these plans, there is an elimination of safe pedestrian crossings. They do not consider a safe crossing is the right turn lanes are also not stopping. Only the through traffic stops but the right lanes will continue. .. If these are intersecting, that these right lanes are not to be controlled? Howard Preston: This move off of TH 5, for example, can not be controlled because there's no conflicts. You're going to be making a right turn, all they can do is make this right turn. This right turn onto TH 5, there will be a yeild sign there. Mark Eiden: It isn't the same as a red light. That was their concern. This area, on many of these intersections, have no crossing in this area of town that doesn't completely stop traffic. Mayor Hamilton: One of the evaluation criteria Mark is pedestrian accessibility and safety. That has to be addressed in each one of these so, I think you're making a good point but that's already one item that they're going to have to consider. ' Mark Eiden: I just wanted to make sure that you understood that. An entire group of homeowners are very concerned. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see that these alternatives, are not necessarily the only place that is a safe place for pedestrians to cross is a semifore white crossing. We've got a lot of topography out there where we may be able to provide a pedestrian overpass or something like that. I'm hoping that the engineers are looking into these kinds of alternatives where pedestrians don't have to cross in front of traffic. Not all traffic stops at red lights. ' Uli Sacchet: I'd like to continent about the cost of the Dakota crossing. There isn't much you can say from the resident's viewpoint. You all know that we go by TH 101 on that Lake Drive East or for that matter, in between TH 5 and Lake ' Drive East and we do like to control TH 5. However, when we discussed it in the neighborhood, we thought that having an option along Dakota intersection idea would be less expensive than any of the other ones because of acquisition or right-of-way. You don't have to buy and possibly move the cement plant. You don't have to turn down a shopping mall and so forth. Do I see this correctly, there is.. . one building that would have to go away, is that correct? Fred Hoisington: I don't know. That's a very hard question. We'll tell you next time. ' SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER, NEW AMERICAN HOMES. Barbara Dacy: I just wanted to clarify that Staff's recommendation is to approve the proposed site plan based on the plans stamped "Received September 9, 1988". ..engineeri.ng memo behind the cover memo was written in regards to the �-- packet that went out... 29 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Essentially they're meeting all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. They meet all the parking setbacks. Landscaping. They're providing all the access points where they're necessary. They've provided us with a secondary access on Lake Drive East. Lighting. They're meeting all the requirements. Mayor Hamilton: Are the applicant's here? You're New American Homes right? Do you want to add to what the staff has said? Frank Kramer: I can tell you a little bit about the building itself. We have the site plan. This is the old site plan that doesn't have the second access on it to Lake Drive East but it shows basically an L shaped building. 45,000 square feet with access points here and here onto TH 5. We're meeting all the landscaping requirements of the City. The building elevation is designed with a clock tower or bell tower in the middle which will be the focal point at the higher point of the property so it will be easily visible off of TH 5. The building is designed with a truss, peak roof to blend into the neighborhood and ' have it as a good neighborhood retail outlet. The building is designed for one or two major tenants staged at either end of the building. The smaller shops... If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Councilman Horn: How many of our 7 alternatives affect this ro rt ? p � Y Barbara Dacy: 3, 4 and 7. 1 Councilman Horn: And you're aware of those alternatives right? Frank Kramer: Yes I am. Councilman Horn: So many times we hear about the things that go in and people say gee, no one ever told me about that possibility happening. I just want you to be aware of it. Frank Kramer: I guess I wasn't aware of any alternative of TH 101 realignment ' when we platted the property 2 years ago, or 3 years ago I guess now, there was no discussion of this intersect plan at that point. If there would have been, we could have made some arrangement for some right-of-way at that point in our platting process and probably help the whole process along. At this point we have a whole lot that is platted and we would like to proceed forward with the project. Councilman Horn: Which alternatives would this proposal eliminate? Frank Kramer: All of them that use Lake Drive East. I Councilman Horn: So in other words, you couldn't use Lake Drive East as an alternative? Barbara Dacy: The same alternatives, 3, 4 and 7. Councilman Horn: When we were going through the downtown development, when we didn't have a solid proposal in place but we knew something was coming, we put on a building moratorium. This seems to be ridiculous that we can go ahead with this proposal at this stage when we know something's going to happen down there. 30 ' City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 - -� We have to keep our options open. I know where you are from a legal standpoint but you have to understand the type of position you're putting us in. You do understand that? Frank Kramer: I've been working with the City staff now for over a year hoping that something concrete would come forward. At this point, each parcel of land ' has cost me $100,000.00 a year to carry. I can not continue to carry it for the City. I've done that for a year and at this point... You have to look at it from my standpoint also. ' Councilman Boyt: Could you show me how the roof is screened from the neighbors? Frank Kramer: How the roof is screened from the neighbors? ' Councilman Boyt: Yes. Are the neighbors in a position where they're going to see the roof? The top of the building. Not the front but the top of the building. Do we have any property that looks down on this site? Frank Kramer: None whatsoever. It's a high point of the development. ' Councilman Boyt: What are your intended hours of operation? Frank Kramer: Our intended hours will be probably 7:00 in the morning until 11:00 at night. Councilman Boyt: Do you understand that there is a potential for Dakota and TH 101 to be closed? That intersection to be closed? understand there is. Again,Frank Kramer: I guess I a g , there's been commercial development along there already and I guess I'd like the City not to turn it's ' back totally on that and make statement for Pat and myself, I think we've done a lot of development in this area and we see it as a viable retail neighborhood business and would not like the City to ignore that. ' Councilman Boyt: This previous developer sent us a letter commenting that he didn't have the perception that Lake Drive East was going to possibly be anything less than it is now. I just want you to understand that if you put this in, you're putting it in with the possibility that we'll close Dakota Avenue. So if you break ground, you're breaking ground at your own risk. That we may also take out Lake Drive East and TH 101 as an intersection so TH 101 may swing well to the west. Frank Kramer: I guess I look at all your site plans. All of the alternatives ' either have an intersection at Dakota or at Great Plains and as such, I think the access to our site would be adequate. ' Councilman Boyt: How many trips per day are you planning on having to your site? Frank Kramer: We haven't had a traffic study conducted. r Councilman Boyt: You think Lake Drive East as it stands now can withstand that traffic? 31 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 , Frank Kramer: It's over designed for a residential street. It's not a residential street...and was designed as such. It can definitely handle that traffic. I paid dearly for that road there. Councilman Boyt: So we have a situation in which you've met the City standards for landscaping. I don't remember comments in the staff report about the types of trees you're planting. Frank Kramer: This is our landscape plan. They've put in a number of different ' plants. There are 57-6 foot Colorado Blue Spruce. We have a lot of small trees. Councilman Boyt: That Colorado Blue Spruce line, that's shielding you from the ' highway? From TH 5? Is that how I understand the layout? Frank Kramer: No, we're shielding our back delivery area from the neighboring ' properties. Then we have one deciduous tree in the parking area and along the boulevard. Councilman Boyt: I'm surprised that the neighborhood hasn't commented more about this. I'd like to know more about their particular interest in this development. I think that the City would be undertaking a tremendous financial liability if we did not approve what you're doing but if it was me looking at the possibility of carrying this for another 6 months versus the possibility of starting in the ground and having the City close those intersections, I'd think twice so I'll vote to approve because we really have no choice but I think you're rolling the dice. I don't think you take into account what it will do to that if we close that intersection and that's a very real possibility. Frank Kramer: As a developer, we've developed over 75 parcels and soon to have , probably the biggest project in the United States going. I think we know our risks... Mayor Hamilton: My comments are totally different from the others. I'm a little upset I guess that you feel you have to move ahead with this based on what's happening in that area. I also understand the costs that you're incurring but you knew that up front also when you bought the land and that's part of the price you pay for development. Are you going to have a Tom Thumb type of anchor in there or what type? I presume you're going to have a grocery of some type or attempt to have. Frank Kramer: .. .all of them have a strong interest. We've also had a national drug store chain indicate a very strong interest. I Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm getting strip shopping centered out. I think we're going to have to rename the City strip city or something. I certainly wish we could find an ordinance that would eliminate a grocery store on every corner and a drug store on every other corner and promote the City as a whole rather than a little strip shopping center everyplace even though I realize this would probably be a benefit to the neighborhood in that area since they wouldn't have to cross the street to do some of their shopping. But we also have a central business district that we're trying to promote and encourage shopping and development there. I kind of agree with Bill. We're kind of over a barrel and 32 , "_57 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 if I approve this, it will be very relunctantly and you won't g et much cooperation from me on your whole project so I hope you realize that. ICouncilman Boyt: We have an option. I guess we draw the line in the sand and table it. I would move that we table. Roger Knutson: Is that tabling it for two weeks? Mayor Hamilton: Until we reach agreement on an alignment? Roger Knutson: I suggest you bring it back in two weeks. Then you'll have a full Council here. There's apparently some division on the Council. If you want to table it for two weeks and have a full Council. Councilman Johnson: Is everybody going to be here in two weeks? ' Mayor Hamilton: There's a motion to table. Is there a second? Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the Site Plan Review for a 40,000 square shopping center for New American Homes for two weeks. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried. IAPPROVAL OF CONTESTED ASSESSMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 86-11A. Don Ashworth: If I could lead off, first of all, the label that we've given to ' this item, I don't really agree with. Staff is the one who initiated a number of the items as far as being pulled off of that last agenda. With that, I'd like to speak to four properties that we've had an opportunity to meet with the property owners involved. The Council has copies of correspondence in the packet. The first two I'd like to talk about are the Old St. Hubert's Church and the Church property itself. In that regard, there was concern at the last meeting regarding the assessment for the Old St. Hubert's Church in the amount ' that had been shown for that. I did have Gary Ehret go back and one of the issues that had been brought out was a concern regarding the assessment for the cemetery property. We had confirmed with the Attorney's office that that should ' not be included as a part of the assessment. Even as of our last meeting, Gary Ehret had thought that he had that totally deleted when we realized that the computer program associated with the lateral assessments for sewer and water had not taken that into account. That produces a new assessment amount for Old St. Hubert's Church of $6,462.85. The school and church property maintains the 1/2 of the watermain assessment and there was an increase due to storm sewer. That assessment is basically staying at the $18,010.22 for a total assessment for the two parcels of $24,473.07. In regards to the Sorenson property, the City Council had asked that we look at the rationale for the assessment. If Council will recall, we do use a method of assessment where if you have full frontage on a street or have already received a street assessment on one side, the assessment is only to be one-half on the other side. That would delete about $16,000.00 and drop that assessment from the $41,462.00 amount down to $25,215.00. The fourth parcel is the Brown property. That really has the same ' issue regarding frontage. In the proposed roll in front of you reduces that ' 33 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 , assessment for street by $9,217.00. In addition, in meeting with Mr. Brown, he believes that he has paid for lateral sewer and trunk storm sewer so in adopting a potential roll, in other words, for that $9,217.00 less figure, he would also ask that the Council give him the flexibility for him to work with staff and if he can show that any of those amounts have been paid, that that portion be assessed would be deleted. That really concludes those four. If at all 11 possible, barring comments from the Council or the audience, I would ask that a motion be considered for those four. Councilman Horn: Are you suggesting some timeframe that that can be worked out? ' Don Ashworth: Let's say within a week as far as Mr. Brown is concerned. Councilman Johnson: What about the rest of it? ' Don Ashworth: The rest are satisfied with the assessments. Again, based on the correspondence and the reductions that I've noted here. Harry Pauly: What about the increases? Are you speaking about those now or are those coming later? , Don Ashworth: They're coming later. I simply wanted to eliminate the four that I do note the people are here and they literally, these assessment fall in line. I think we can dispense with those four and then discuss really the remaining ones. Councilman Boyt: On Brown's Service here, I must have missed it Don. In just a , very few words, was that the corner lot decrease that resulted in the $9,217.00? Don Ashworth: That's correct. It treats the car wash as though it fronts on 79th Street, which in fact it does. Councilman Boyt: Has it even been assessed for fronting on two streets? Don Ashworth: Yes, it was assessed for the frontage on 79th Street as was Sorenson's on the opposite side of the street. Councilman Boyt: So what we've done effectively is reduce the assessment to one street frontage? Don Ashworth: One-half of the side yard assessment. 1 Mayor Hamilton: Father Barry, do you have any comments, questions? Father Barry: No, I think our Attorney's and we are agreeable to this amount that involves the easement agreements that you discussed with Don. I have not been able to show them these documents but we agreed on this finally on Friday and I have not been able to show the. ..people these documents but by telephone they feel that what I've told them and read to them, that this is just and equitable. , Mayor Hamilton: I would then move approval of the assessments noting the changes and decrease and the noted changes. Those are the ones that we're dealing with right? 34 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 II . Don Ashworth: Four parcels. IICouncilman Johnson: The Sorenson, the two St. Hubert's and Gary Browns? Don Ashworth: That's correct. ' Councilman Horn: I'll second it. ' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the assessments with the noted changes for Mr. Sorenson, Gary Brown and St. Hubert's Church property and St. Hubert's Church and School property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Don Ashworth: As in regards to, I see Mr. Hanson is here and Mr. Pauly, as Council is aware, we are in condemnation with the Bodine Hendrickson and with the Bernie Hanson property. Personally I don't see where that's really an issue on the assessments. I haven't had a chance to talk with Bernie but as ' I understand the Court did agree with the City's taking this past week. Now it's just a matter of how much money. I don't see where the assessments are really an issue on yours one way or the other Bernie. Bernie Hanson: If we proceed to that point, if we ever get something accomplished, yes. Up until the other day, we didn't even have a direction we were going. '• Don Ashworth: Harry, I'm not sure if you wish to comment. You had a chance to meet with Gary Ehret right before the meeting. You had some questions regarding ' differences and I did not participate in those discussions. Harry Pauly: I've had a little bit of a problem with the size of the property i that's left is 3 feet on the side. 3.6 I guess on the side of the building that they built a plaza planter box on that's still in my name but I have no access to it or use of it. I don't feel that I should be assessed in the square footage of that piece of property as well as the front footage. Don Ashworth: Gary, did you verify? Should the assessment be modified to take that into account? Gary Ehret: Well, in my opinion, no. The assessment methodology was always the assessable front footage and the assessable square footage of the parcel based on fee title. I understand Mr. Pauly's concern regarding use of it but it doesn't change the condition of the parcel. What you're talking about is roughly 3 1/2 feet of front footage. 3 1/2 feet by I believe about 80 feet deep. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem though if we're actually taking whatever footage of property, 3 feet or 4 feet say, we've taken that and built a planter on it, Harry has no use of it. Is he going to have to go out and water the plants now and the trees that he didn't want to have planted there? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me either. ' Councilman Johnson: Did we plant trees on Harry's property? 35 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I Harry Pauly: The planter's on my property. It's fastened down to my building. They punched holes into the side of my building to anchor the planter on. I didn't even know they were there until one Monday morning I come to work and here they're pounding on the side of the building. No one ever asked. That's just the way it happened. Then I've had water in the basement from the planters when they water the shurbs. Mayor Hamilton: Can you answer the question Gary? I'm asking Gary to answer my question, why we shouldn't purchase that property or do something. Gary Ehret: If you choose to purchase the property and do it at this time, it - is not shown... I Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me that Harry's got a good lawsuit against us if we don't purchase it. We built on his property without his permission. , Gary Ehret: We sought easements from Mr. Pauly. Mayor Hamilton: Did you get them? ' Gary Ehret: It's part of the condemnation action. Mayor Hamilton: It would seem that you may need to resolve that somehow equitably. I don't know what the value of 4 feet is. It's 4 feet by how long? Gary Ehret: Roughly 70 feet. Harry Pauly: 80 feet. Roger Knutson: If you have a condemnation case going, I'm not personally working on it, I don't know the specifics of what we're taking and not taking so I can't comment on it but I'll sure find out. If we're occupying Mr. Pauly's property, you have to pay for that... Harry Pauly: I know it's not in the condemnation. It's 20 feet behind in the parking lot but not any of the land on the east side of the building. Mayor Hamilton: Well, would you investigate that? Roger Knutson: I'll check that out and someone will be in touch with you or your attorney tomorrow. Mayor Hamilton: And then the assessment would be modified. Would that satisfy you to have the assessment•modifi.ed? Harry Pauly: I'm objecting to the whole assessment as far as that's concerned. ' I don't feel that there are many property owners there. ..assessnents along that and then they're turned back to the ones who are remaining there, that they're picking up the entire debt. That parking lot has got to be probably the highest priced parking lot in the City. I don't feel that it's any better as far as parking cars is concerned than anybody elses parking lot but for square foot, I'm sure the assessments on that is higher than any other parking lot in the City. 36 1 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I Gary Ehret: The rate for that parking lot is higher than the work in other ' parking lots but it's a function of what was constructed. . . For example, the bowling center lot will not be linked to reconstruction rate that was charged for the construction activities. The bowling center lot is cheaper than that ' lot. It's a function of the work that was completed. Harry Pauly: Another point we brought up, Gary and I did about the parcel of land where the plaza is on. Acquisition of that property should not be included ' in the assessment. That was strictly a City project. That parcel for the plaza. Don Ashworth: I would agree with that. I guess I'd like to meet with Roger and Gary and explain that but I don't think, that was included in the overall assessment for the parking area Gary. Is that correct? ' Gary Ehret: Correct. Don Ashworth: I think that reasonably should be eliminated. I think that is a ' cost that the entire community is benefitting from. Harry Pauly: That would of course change the assessments of the Pony and the other places too. Don Ashworth: Any change that was made like that would affect all the property owners in a similar fashion. IIHarry Pauly: I think at this point we should table this again for another day or session. ' Mayor Hamilton: We can table Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus again to clarify those issues that have been brought up. Does that cause a problem Don? There's certainly ' some questions here that need to be answered. Don Ashworth: No question. What I was going to suggest is the adoption with the understanding that that amount would be reduced and based on Roger's work regarding acquisition but I think we're going to be alright because what we've been working is an October 10th certification deadline and I believe that they are willing to give us some additional time this year to the point where that ' should not create a problem. You have to give the property owner 30 days to pay without penalty so that's where the problem comes in. Gary Warren: That clock now, the County allows that clock to run after October 10th. In fact, I think they have all the way to December 1st. Mayor Hamilton: So we can approve the others and table Pony/Pauly/Pryzmus until ' the 26th? Don Ashworth: That's correct. ' Councilman Boyt: My question would_be, who's going to pay the difference? Don Ashworth: Personally I had felt all the way through that that was an HRA ' type of a cost. Everything that I've talked to the HRA about has been in terms ' 37 City Council Meeting - September 12, 198 P 1988 of that plaza area being within the perview and scope, all of the costs to date, turning the building, the renovations, everything have been back with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Clark, you can correct me if I've misstated that but that's what I had considered it all the way through. Councilman Boyt: There's a slight difference here when Mr. Pauly talks about , the City. This is really an HRA expense? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Which is a separate unit. Mayor Hamilton: I would approval of the assessments other than the Pauly, Pony , and Pryzmus and have those brought back on the 26th for clarification. Councilman Johnson: There were two Pauly's. ' Mayor Hamilton: Right. Any of the Pauly, Pony, Pryzmus items will be tabled until the 26th. The others will be approved. Councilman Horn: Second. Philip Hillman: I didn't know about this until about a month ago. My wife was I going to take care of it but she's sick. I'd just like to comment that I'm referring to Parcel No. 25-3500-380 which is the apartment building at 389 Chan View. My feeling is that the tax assessment is of no benefit to me. We've already paid for one assessment according to my belief. Of course, I listen to the City Manager and everything. It's not as simple as it sounds so if I'm saying anything that's not correct, please bear with me. It's also my understanding that the parcel around and adjoining my property of 389 Chanhassen I believe are paying the assessment so I'd just like to make the point that I'm willing to pay taxes, we all have to do it but if I'm being singled out, then I'd rather not pay the taxes. 1 Mayor Hamilton: The whole property east of his was assessed wasn't it? Don Ashworth: I think he's referring to the residential properties. Councilman Johnson: To the west. Mayor Hamilton: Everybody to the east, to your building and to the east because the drainage is that way, was assessed. Philip Hillman: I might not know what I'm talking about here because this is what my wife heard from the neighbors. So is that not true that the people adjoining my property are not being assessed? Mayor Hamilton: The residential property to the west of your property have not been assessed because they drain the other way. From your property east has all been assessed. Philip Hillman: I'm not being singled out? Mayor Hamilton: No. 38 1 • City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ; F Resolution #88-94: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the contested assessments for the Downtown Redevelopment Project #86-11A except the Pony, Pauly's and Pyrzmus' properties which will be brought back on the I - for 26th of September. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PROPOSED GARDEN CENTER ON 3.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED ON WEST 78TH STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND PRODUCTS, JAY KRONICK: A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. B. REZONING REQUEST FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK TO BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. D. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN CENTER AND HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND. E. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT. Mayor Hamilton: This is an issue we've talked about many times before. Hopefully he's found a piece of property that he can put his business on. Barbara Dacy: Do you want me to run through the items? } , Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think you should. The last proposal for this property Iwas an auto service center. Barbara Dacy: The y: parcel is located between the Chanhassen Office Building and ' Redmond Products Building. The parcel is bisected by the Hennepin County and Carver County line. The east half of the site is zoned IOP and regarded as industrial. The proposal is to rezone and redesignate the eastern half of the property from industrial to commercial. To rezone it from IOP to BH, Business Highway. That would be consistent with the. .. The last time the Council saw these two applications for rezoning and the land use plan amendment, it was Council's direction to table action on these two items until a specific site plan could be considered. The applicant has done so and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the two modifications to the recommended 12 conditions of approval. They took out the originally proposed condition 4 and instead put that there should be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. The other, condition 2 there's a word change regarding the Wetland Alteration Permit process. I do want to spend a little bit of time talking about the traffic generation from this site and follow it a little bit more from the Manager's comments. As you all know, this frontage road will be serviced by the full intersection of Dell Road and TH 5 when TH 5 is improved. Obviously, we're working on the Dakota Avenue and TH 101 realignment intersection issue. To give you a feel for how much traffic a nursery/garden centers can generate, what I did is kind of undertook a little mini-study. On a scale of intensity of garden centers and nurseries, I believe the most intense would be the Lyndale Garden Center over in Bloomington there. They have everything from soup to nuts and several acres of property. When I called over there regarding parking requirements and so on, the owner said don't even use us an example because we're just one of a kind in the State and region. ' The next step down from that I think would be a Frank's Nursery. As compared to 1 39 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 11 this proposal, it's more intensive as far as the retail items, a larger store. There is outdoor display and storage however. A more comparable garden center to the applicant's proposal is the Shorewood Nursery on CR 19. Similar in size sales building. Has a cash machine in it. A couple of other items regarding landscpaing or whatever but primarily outdoor storage areas. In asking the owner about his parking demands and so on, it depends on the time of year obviously. It go from having one car when days are slow to several. He did quantify that the parking area in front of the area.. .anywhere from 10 to 20 cars. .. Another rule of thumb that we tried to use is transportation studies from California. If you can believe anything that comes out of California I don't know but it was a professional transportation book that we use that established some ratios of trips per day per employee.. . To compare what the Kronick proposal could do versus other retail uses, just to give you an idea, on that same parcel. On just the BH parcel, you could locate the Town Square development. The 18,000 square foot retail center on that western half of the property that's 18,000 square feet of retail and you're looking at a traffic generation of approximately 3,600. Another example that I just pulled out would be a drive-in bank and trips are determined by the amount of windows that they provide. Using the information submitted by Mr. Kronick, we're estimating that at most, that 1,100 trips per day could be generated from the site. That's using the California numbers. I've got to believe that that's very, very high. It's based on information that I had at hand. In any case, the point is that the proposed use is and can be less intensive than other uses permitted in the district. Traffic and transportation access to the site.. .at this point. Just briefly, staff had recommended two additional conditions for approval. One is that the enclosure for the mulch bag and fertilizer bags be constructed by October 1, 1989. The applicant had requested a little more leeway to construct that. Secondly, depending on when the City concludes the grading work on the pond and so on, the applicant requested the ability to be open prior to the parking area being paved so we recomended a condition that the parking area be paved within 4 weeks of the completion of the City's grading activities and also giving City Staff the ability to determine whether or not you can issue.. .prior to paving of the parking lot. It's really going to come down to a weather and timing issue so we want to build in some flexibility. I Mayor Hamilton: Jay, did you have anything you wish to add? Jay Kronick: Nothing to add, no. I'd be happy to answer questions. 1 Councilman Johnson: I think staff's done a good job on this one. I think that's a pretty good location. There are some risks as the TH 101 realignment study, which you sat through earlier, you spent the whole evening listening to the problems. There are some things that haven't mentioned there. One is the possibility of closing 78th Street. I guess I did mention it once but there's probably going to be a considerable difficulty with the railroad to get two crossings of their railroad'•that close to each other at grade. Those negotiations are going to be tough. If that happens, then there could be some limited access for the Chanhassen residents to get to your property. They'd have to go down to Eden Prairie basically and back track in. You have the people going eastbound could have some problems there. The whole long range of things, that's the only thing I see creating a problem here for retail ' operations along that strip. I do believe this is a fairly decent area. I don't like that intersection too much because I have been through there. As I drive through it, I try to avoid that one personally. I'm all for this one. kE 40 , II a City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 II Councilman Horn: I have no comments. - ICouncilman Boyt: I have the same one about the intersection. That concerns me. That is currently a very bad intersection. We're fortunate that the traffic II that we have there at any particular time of day unfortunately is the wrong time of day but it's fairly concentrated and it's a little scary to think that we're going to be encouraging more traffic. I don't know what our alternative is but II I sure hope you're considering all this TH 101 as you make your plans so you don't get surprised. The rest of my comments are really directed to the conditional use permit so I can wait until then. I Mayor Hamilton: I think the intersection, it's not good but certainly as you drive by there you can see there and it can certainly be signed better so people understand more clearly where you need to go. Perhaps we can ask the State to I help us out to make that a better intersection. I think it's a good location. I think you'll get the traffic. You'll get the people down there. It's not that difficult to get in and out. I don't think TH 101 will affect you in the least so I'm very much in favor of getting you in there. Get you going. It's only I been what, 2 years? I would like to move approval of the Land Use Amendment Request to change from industrial to commercial. IResolution #88-95: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Land Use Plan Amendment #88-3 to redesignate 1.7 acres of industrial to commercial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Mayor Hamilton: We have a rezoning request to go from IOP to Business Highway. I would approval of that. 1 Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. It's probably too late to do this. One of the reasons for waiting to rezone this until we saw the request was so we could I do these hand and glove. I have some questions about the conditional use permit request. I get the most impact with an individual vote on item (b) because as I recall to rezone takes a four-fifths vote and that's a unanimous vote. So II hate to do this because I think we're basically in agreement on this but I would prefer that we not vote on (b) until we've covered (c) . If we get (c) worked out, (b) can fly through. If we don't get (c) worked out, (b) won't make it. I Mayor Hamilton: If you .have a problem with (c) , then that seems to be your hot. . ., so you go right ahead and talk about it. ICouncilman Boyt: Thanks. I think that one question I had, there's really a series of questions. I think vehicles stored on site should be screened. I I know you're screening your building. You're doing some work to screen the greenhouse. I didn't get a sense for how many vehicles you were going to be i starting with initially. I thought it might be something like some kind of a I-- small forklift or something on that order. I 41 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Jay Kronick: ...otherwise vehicles consist of a small pick-up truck and. .. Councilman Boyt: I don't particularly have a problem with vehicles that are considered to be normal employee sort of vehicles. Pick-up trucks, automobiles. My problem is with what I would consider to be industrial or contracting oriented vehicles. I'd like to see part of the conditional use permit be that those are screened. Co you see that as a burden? Jay Kronick: I think I initially.. .will probably be accomodated in the mulch and fertilizer storage area... Councilman Boyt: Good. That was another one of my questions. Gary, maybe I read the map wrong. It looked to me like the garden center was 7 feet below the pond's high water mark. That can't be right can it? Gary Warren: No. .. ' Councilman Boyt: So if anything, the garden center is above the high water mark? We're not talking about... Gary Warren: Or at least the 2 foot criteria. Councilman Boyt: As I understand the plan, later on tonight we're going to be , talking about a weir system to catch oil. Are we going to have that included in the ponding site? Barbara Dacy: A skimmer? , Councilman Boyt: No, not a skimmer. I'm talking about a system that we're -now moving to that basically handles oil and other on surface contaminates by trapping. Larry Brown: My apologies, we talked about this this afternoon or this morning ' was, are those skimming devices, the skimmer that you see on our pond outlets now.. . Councilman Boyt: What are we going to do about oil runoff? Mayor Hamilton: Everything is running in the opposite direction. Councilman Johnson: That can be skimmed. Councilman Boyt: So we're going to put it out on the street? You're telling me ' this ponding isn't going to be servicing this particular piece of property? I thought it was. Gary Warren: The ponding along West 78th Street. As far as oil expected from the site, is there something that I'm missing here? Something beyond the requirements? Mayor Hamilton: All runoff was to be towards the south and to use the West 78th Street ditch, I read. 42 11 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Boyt: Okay, I missed that point. I'm not saying that there's ng t at there s going to be oil above and beyond what would be usual. All I'm saying is do we have Ii any means of controlling or are we interested in oil that leaks out of the parking lot area? ' Gary Warren: I think if it's something excessive and I don't know how I define excessive but this is typical, a less than intense than say Redmond Products or anything else that we've got out there. Councilman Boyt: I would want as another condition, and I gather that you've already talked to staff about this, that this property is not approved for operation as a contractor's or landscaping business. I really see two ' conditions that I'd like to see added. That be that we have the vehicles on site other than typical vehicles. If we have any construction, any industrial type vehicles screened and that the property itself not be the source of a ' contractor or landscaping business. One last point is on your greenhouse. Can you tell me how the greenhouse is going to be covered? What the roof is going to have on it? Jay Kronick: For much of the year it would not be covered at all. For approximately four months of the year it will be covered with an 8 mil polyethalene. The ends of it would be attached... Councilman Boyt: You're going to screen the building with pine trees or something to that effect? I , Jay Kronick: I agree to a permanent 6 foot evergreen hedge along the perimeter, three sides, the north, west and south sides. Councilman Boyt: And how high above the hedge does the greenhouse go? Jay Kronick: The top of the greenhouse, the top is 9 1/2 feet. Councilman Boyt: So 3 1/2 feet. I have some concern that we have an entrance to the City that for four months of the year is going to have a building with a polyethalene top to it and it's not rigid. I think that that's a tough way to have people come in. To go by, even 8 mil which is fairly heavy stuff. Mayor Hamilton: What are they going to do, see that and turn around? 11 Councilman Boyt: They're not going to see that and turn around but I think we're doing everything we can to have an attractive entrance to town. We're fighting upstream right now because we've got the Redimix and a few other items here but I'm not real comfortable with approving a situation in which, going into it I know it's going to have a flexible plastic roof. Mayor Hamilton: I can't believe that that has any adverse affect on anything. If I see that or I would suspect if most people would see that, most normal people see that and they'll say, there's probably a greenhouse operation. I can ' go there and buy some plants. I see these things all over. I don't know, maybe you have terrible eye pollution with it. When you drive into a city and you see that as part of a growing and thriving community. ' Councilman Horn: You're talking about 3 1/2 feet above a row of evergreens? 43 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I Barbara Dacy: And 6 feet is at the time of planting. We wanted an immediate hedge. I Councilman Boyt: The hedge is not going to be maintained at 6 feet? Councilman Horn: No. , Councilman Boyt: We're going to have a hedge that grows up, is that the idea? Councilman Horn: So your 3 1/2 feet will be decreased every year. 11 Councilman Boyt: We've got two different things going here Clark. , Barbara Dacy: When we talked, it was staff's direction that it be installed at 6 feet. Maybe we did go so far as saying to keep it at 6 feet. There is an option there also. Councilman Horn: If we put in evergreens, why would we trim them off at 6 feet every year? I Mayor Hamilton: Probably to keep the sunlight coming into those greenhouses. Jay Kronick: When you get up to a certain growth, that's going to be a problem but I think to address the issue Tom spoke to, this greenhouse is a selling point. People will see it, oh there's a garden center. I can probably pick up my plants there. I want people to know that there's a greenhouse there. I i think it helps sell. .. Gary Warren: Maybe the concern as far as the plastic covering is more of an I ongoing maintenance standpoint. I know construction sites look very bad when you've got it flapping in the wind and all torn so maybe we cover it with a condition that specifies that it be maintained in a suitable appearance. Councilman Horn: It would seem to me that you could let it grow to a height where it would provide an adequate screen and still wouldn't screen out any sunlight for the greenhouse. I don't understand that unless I'm missing some angle here. Councilman Boyt: What if we put it in at 6 feet and let it grow to the peak of the roof. Then if he's got his 8 mil plastic on there in good repair, it's not noticeable. I don't have a strong sense that this is going to be a blight on the community. I don't mean to communicate that. I think that it is a fairly important decision that we're going to live with long term. And as he said, the building is going to be something that people are going to see. Jay Kronick: I guess rather than increase that hedge, that I use a I transparent. .. As shown on the plan, the greenhouses are oriented east/west to accomodate the setback requirements and so forth. I think I'm 70 feet in. It's these long surfaces that are covered with plastic. The ends would have a wood finish to them. I would prefer to orient the greenhouses so they run north/ south thereby minimizing your concern and probably eliminating it completely. I'd be a lot happier. That top structure could still be seen from the highway but it wouldn't be this 40 or 60 foot expanse of plati.c. 44 -, •City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ) Mayor Hamilton: If it fits in there, I don't have any problem either. I Councilman Boyt: I wish I knew. I know what m y concern is. I just can't project as to what the best solution to my concern is so maybe we can put in the conditional use permit, it gets back to the business of keep it attractive. I guess that's the heart of the issues. I would like to see, especially if you run it north/south. I would think then that that hedge continuing to grow up ' becomes less of a problem for you because the access to the greenhouse end of it is really east/west anyway isn't it with the sun? Jay Kronick: The sun's probably high enough at the time of year that it's ' needed that even a 9 foot hedge, if it's planted far enough away from it isn't an impact. The visual impact you're trying to minimize is what I'm trying to attain because it helps sell my business. Councilman Boyt: You have a nice sign. Well, for conditions I would propose, and we'll see what flies and what doesn't. I propose that the vehicles as mentioned be screened. That we have no contract or landscaping business operating on the premises and that the hedge as mentioned be allowed to grow and the building be oriented north/south as you've indicated you're willing to do. That's my motion along with the staff conditions. Jay Kronick: . ..I guess I was suggesting a different orientation to meet the concerns but I would not like to see a situation where I must orient north/ south and had. .. I was suggesting it as an alternative because I would have to I compromise the size of those structures. Councilman Horn: I don't think this motion limits you to the direction. Only ' to the hedge. Councilman Boyt: I did but I'll pull that part of it off. Mayor Hamilton: So he can maintain the height of the hedge? ' Councilman Boyt: I guess we're really saying north/south or 6 foot. Is that what we're saying? Mayor Hamilton: It would have to be less than 6 feet. I Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request #88-13 based on the site plan stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and north walls of the greenhouse and installation of a 2 foot hedge along the east side of the display area in front of the sales building. 1111 2. Approval and compliance with Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8. L 3. The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the City of ' Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility easements and to properly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City. 45 ul City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 4. There shall be no outside sales of merchandise as opposed to outside display of merchandise. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. 6. The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system. , 7. Details for the installation and connection of the sanitary sewer and water services shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 8. A check valve shall be installed on the sanitary sewer service prior to discharge into the public sanitary sewer system. 9. The proposed utility easements shall be revised to include a 40 foot wide utility easement which shall cover all of the existing and proposed utilities. 10. A revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval as part of the final review process. 11. The proposed water service connection shall be "wet tapped" in accordance with the latest published version for the Standard Specifications for Utility Installation from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) . 12. Details for the service connection to the 10 inch diameter watermain should be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final approval. 13. An enclosure screening the bags of mulch and fertilizer shall be constructed by October 1, 1989. 14. The applicant shall arrange to pave the parking area within four weeks of completion of the City's work. Upon approval from city staff, the applicant , may receive an occupancy permit prior to completion of the paving work. 15. All industrial vehicles stored on-site shall be screened. ' 16. No landscaping or contractor's yard shall be operated on the site. 17. The hedge used for screening the greenhouse must be 6 feet in height or the ' applicant will orient the greenhouse north/south. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Rezoning Request #88-3 to rezone 1.7 acres of property from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District subject to approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment by the City Council and the Metropolitan Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 46 ' • City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-8 based on the plans stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and I subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11. ' 2. Compliance with the Army Corps of Engineer's conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Purchase Agreement for the City's storm water ponding area located on Jay Kronick's property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON 39 ACRES ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 212 JUST WEST OF THE ASSUMPTION SEMINARY, HARRY LINDBERY. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit by a 4 to 2 vote. There's been no changes in the staff's conditions should the Council decide to approve the conditional use permit. I believe it should have been included in your packet is the correspondence fran the applicant's attorney. Beyond that we have nothing further. 111 Councilman Boyt: My first question is of the applicant. Could you tell me about the vehicles you're going to be using. The number, size, type, storing on ' the property. Harry Lindbery: It will be all the way from 1 pick-up on up to a tractor trailer. Councilman Boyt: How many tractor trailers will you have? Harry Lindbery: Probably 4 or 5. Councilman Boyt: Are you aware that currently the City only has one contractor's yard that has a tractor trailer and that operation only has one tractor trailer? Can you tell me why do you need 4 or 5 tractor trailers? Harry Lindbery: A lot of our business is taking light poles and things like that. They take them, we have jobs scattered all over. Some are in North Dakota. Some in Iowa. Some in South Dakota. Some in Wisconsin. Some of them won't come in probably for a week. It won't be a heavy traffic in and out. I asked the Minnesota Highway Department and they said that they didn't see any problem with it. It would be the same driving vehicles that they use right now. Councilman Boyt: I thought they indicated that at a minimum we'd need to have a turn off lane. Harry Lindbery: They said if the traffic got heavy and we've got plenty of room there and if we need to take and make a turn off lane, we can work that out with ' 47 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 the Department of Transportation. Councilman Boyt: So you're prepared then to build the MnDot installation of a right turn lane and left turn lane if required? Harry Lindbery: If they're required, yes. i Councilman Boyt: Will you tell me, it's my understanding that the hours of operation of a contractor's yard are limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.? That's how I understand our ordinance. Harry Lindbery: I think that was it. Councilman Boyt: So it would seem to me to be reasonable then, one of the problems with tractor trailers is that it's common for the motors to run all night long. Harry Lindbery: No. That's the reason we want to make a buildin g so s ' they can get inside. We would be, I would have at a minimum of 500 feet from any building there. That's why we chose behind the creek where it's screened by trees, they must be 25 to 30 feet high on the south and the railroad tracks on the north are between 15 to 20 feet higher than where our building's going to be located. You have a copy of what we're asking and it's ideal location for not bothering anybody. Councilman Boyt: Are there any home sites that look down on this property now? Barbara Dacy: The Hesse Farm subdivision is 30 to 40 feet grade.her in rade. g Councilman Boyt: So there's really effectively no way we can screen this I industrial equipment from those houses? Barbara Dacy: No, but staff's position was to make sure that the ordinance requirements. .. One of our conditions was that a 6 foot screen be installed around the north side of the storage area. Obviously we realize that there's no screening value to that for those folks but at least we have it. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest first that the Planning Commission reacted from emotion rather than logic in denying this. I would agree with the two commissioners who said if we've got it on the books, we can't be playing around I with everybody that comes in in terms of whether we approve something or don't approve it. It's there. You meet the conditions. I would suggestion however that it's quite reasonable to not allow you to have more tractor trailer use than any other facility. Any other contractor's yard and I would propose that we limit the tractor trailer use to one since that's what we currently have. I think we're sitting in probably one of the busiest pieces of traffic in our community. Any time a tractor trailer is going to take a turn across that highway, it's running a risk. I would suggest that this is one of those things that unfortunately we didn't adjust our ordinance to take care of it but given what our ordinance is, I can't see denying it. I can see putting in conditions to try and make it as safe and as much of a fit with what's developed around it as possible. One condition I would like to see us add to the staff's list is to limit tractor trailers to one. 48 , 1 I - II � a Inomere 1 lower• City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 i ���I Councilman Johnson: Who's the contractor's yard that has only one? Barbara Dacy: It's Merle Volk. Councilman Johnson: He only has one? Barbara Dacy: On the vehicle list that he submitted us for his conditional use permit application, that's what was on there. Councilman Johnson: With all the heavy grading equipment vy g g equ pment he's got, earth movers and stuff, I can't see how he's only got one. I don't think he drives those big earth movers out to the site without using a tractor trailer. I doubt if he has only one. From what I understand here, I don't see restricting this to one to be reasonable, personally, for what his operation, as I understand it is going to be. There will be times, probably around Christmas time when everybody is back home for the holidays, that his full crew will have all their vehicles in there. There will be other times when they don't. I'd hate to say, well gee you've got to take your semi home with you because we can only have one truck in here and Joe got here before you did so you take your truck up to Plymouth and park it at your house. I'm not sure that's a reasonable condition. I'm not sure that I'm ready to try to kill this project by doing that. My biggest concern for this project actually is a very slight concern as to why they, when they've got what looks to be a nice little path through the trees, they chose to cut through the edge of the trees and take out some of the trees and make a more straight sight line into the project. I would have thought that you would even be better shaded if you had, where you cut across the creek and head to the west a little bit there and follow the opening of the trees and then curve it back. Put a little curvature in the road instead of that nice long straight shot. It makes it a little more difficult to build but you might save a tree or two. I didn't have a chance to go look at this site and see whether that's a significant change or not but it seems easy enough to do to do that. That creek is very important to me. The DNR is interested in making it into a trout stream and stuff. In fact, they tried to claim it was and they were able to prove that it wasn't but I have been told there are trout living in that little stream behind your place there. If that's the same stream that runs behind the Assumption Seminary. According to the people who live there, at the Assumption Seminary, there are trout in that stream. I was up to my knee in that stream in mud so I know it's not dry. It's running pretty good. What are you going to do with your, are you going to do vehicle maintenance in here? Harry Lindbery: In the wintertime when our season is over, we will take and , work inside the building to maintain our equipment. Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have a full time mechanic? ' Harry Lindbery: Yes. • Councilman Johnson: Okay, what's he going to be doing during the rest of the 1 year? Harry Lindbery: He's going to be working on rigs because we have front end , loaders and we have a bulldozer, different things and they need to be maintained all the time. 49 a _ City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ' Councilman Johnson: What do you do with your used oil? Harry Lindbery: We would put that in a tank and then there's a waste oil man comes and sucks it out in a small transport and he takes it away. It's a truck similiar to like they bring fuel oil to houses. Councilman Johnson: Is that an above ground tank? Harry Lindbery: We would prefer to put one below ground but we could adjust. That way we would eliminate the hazards of some kid coming along hunting rabbits and if he didn't see one, take a shot at the tank. Councilman Johnson: That's true in that area. Going below ground, have to be checking into the new rules for underground storage tanks for petroleum products. Harry Lindbery: We already checked with Hederman. He said he can comply with all of the State requirements. Councilman Johnson: He's one of the biggest tank gg guys in town. I've heard some pretty good answers so far. What is the maximum number of semis that you would need in there at any one time? You say you own four. Harry Lindbery: I would say five. Councilman Johnson: On the average, how many would you have there? Harry Lindbery: Probably two. Councilman Johnson: During the winter you'd have more but they're basically ' sitting and being maintained because you're not operating much during the winter? ' Harry Lindbery: That's correct. Councilman Johnson: During the summer, how many times a day would a semi be coming in and out of here? Harry Lindbery: Not more than once. It isn't something, it isn't high traffic. Councilman Johnson: What do you use your semis for? Do they go pick up your product at the factory and take it to your work site? Harry Lindbery: We do that and then we haul, some of our machinery we have to haul because you can't drive it on the road. 1 Councilman Johnson: When you get it to the work site then does the truck dead head back while the machinery stays at the site? Harry Lindbery: They'll usually stay until the end of the day and then come back at the end of the day. Sometimes they would just drop the machinery off or something. Different days and different jobs are different. 67 I 50 -t -y City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 , Councilman Johnson: In comparison to your nearest contractor's yard which is , the garbage truck place, you would have less trips per day. How many employees are going in here? Harry Lindbery: I think we have 12 including myself and office that wouldn't be there at the present time. In a couple of years. ..that I don't know. Councilman Johnson: I think they've answered most of my questions. Councilman Horn: Isn't it a requirement on the conditional use permit that there's an equipment list? Barbara Dacy: No, there's not a requirement in the ordinance. Councilman Horn: We have required that though in the past. I think we should require that of all conditional use permits that are being issued. It shouldn't be vague. These are not standard uses. These are something that's allowed on a more or less temporary basis until development comes in. As a matter of fact, my intent was, when we put this in place that it actually was more of a ma and pa type operation such as what the other municipalities around here have for a contractor's yard. I don't know what your gross revenues are per year but I suspect it's probably getting right up there which certainly wasn't the intent of this. Obviously, that's. ..disallowing at this point but I think we need to take a look at our contractor's yard ordinance and keep with the original intent of what we were trying to do because this to me is going to be a pretty big operation. I think we need some type of limits on what we allow for a contractor's yard in terms of equipment lists. To me, if I understand it right, this exceeds by quite a factor what our current most intensive contractor's yard is in the City. Barbara Dacy: On the number of vehicles, they're approximately the same. The 1 tractor trailers, there are more of those. Councilman Horn: So the size of the vehicles is much bigger. If you went by gross weight allowed per vehicle, it's much bigger. Barbara Dacy: All of your comments are consistent with the Planning Commission action on contractor's yards. Councilman Horn: How many employees are at the Volk site? Barbara Dacy: I've got the file here if you give me a minute. Councilman Horn: I would guess much less than 12. Mayor Hamilton: It depends if you're talking about just Merle's operation or are you talking about the whole site? Probably 25. Councilman Horn: Merle's operation. Mayor Hamilton: Merle's operation is one person. He sold out. He's the only I one there now. If you want to talk about J.P. Norex, then it's a whole different ballgame. If you want to talk about the nursery that's there, during their busy season, they've probably got 25 or 30 people working for them. ' 51 11 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I Councilman Boyt: What about the waste operation? How many employees do they 1 have? That's probably pretty intensive. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. They haven't started yet have they? I/ Councilman Johnson: Not at that location. Councilman Boyt: They were talking about 3 or 4 trucks, is that right? Councilman Johnson: They own 4 right now. ' Barbara Dacy: The staff report said 4 employees in 1984. Councilman Boyt: In Merle Volk's? Barbara Dacy: In Merle Volk's. 1 Mayor Hamilton: That's if you talk about just Merle's operation and Merle is now down to two, maybe three counting himself but there are others. He wasn't the only one in that location that have been approved so there are more people than that but if you go in there at any time during the day, drive into his operation, there's probably only 1 or 2 people there that are working in the garage. The rest of them are out in the field. The same as what their operation is going to be. They come to work in the morning. They get their ' equipment and they go out to the field and they work. They come back at night, get in their car and go home. It's not like it's a place where people are hanging around all day. Councilman Horn: I think we have other businesses in that category too. Barbara Dacy: The Gardeneer has 10 full time employees and 25 seasonal ' employees for the same site. Councilman Horn: I don't have any other comments. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a good location for them and I don't see any need to limit the number of vehicles in there. It's a contractor's yard. It's a construction type of operation. You go out to the site and you work and you come back and it's not causing traffic in and out. There's hardly anybody there ever. As the City develops and continues to grow and move in that direction, then you're going to pack up and move to some other location where you're out. You need to be out and away from where the residential people are. I see contractor's yards as an asset to the community and as a temporary facility in the community because you don't stay there forever. I think it's a good place ' for you and I hope you do well. You're not going to be handling any hazardous materials are you? Harry Lindbery: The only thing that you could say might be hazardous is fuel or ' waste oil but we would have that contained in tanks. I don't think it's, it doesn't have any special taking to handle it. Mayor Hamilton: I just noted where you were doing some special hauling, I thought perhaps you were hauling hazardous materials from one spot to another. ' 52 717 ,City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 1 Harry Lindbery: No. ' Mayor Hamilton: I have no problem with it. Barbara Dacy: If Council wants to include in their motion to identify, as part of this application identify the 15 vehicles, if you want to make that clear in the motion...to specify an equipment list. Mayor Hamilton: I'd move approval of the conditional use permit for a , contractor's yard on 39 acres zoned A-2, Agricultural Estates and located on TH 212 located west of the Assumption Seminary with the 17 conditions as outlined by staff and with an 18th condition being that we receive a vehicle inventory. ' Councilman Horn: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt: I move to amend. I'd like to see, I might as well take a shot at all of these at one time. I'd like to see three additional conditions added. Condition 19. The total vehicles to be limited to include no more than 1 tractor trailer on the premises at any one time. I guess I would make that more specific, the inventory sheet would include only 1 tractor trailer. The second one, no machinery shall operate between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. This is an area that as we've noted, residential properties look down on it. I don't think we have the right to allow a business to come in there that is the potential noise generator heavy equipment can be and operate any other hours besides our typical construction hours. That would be condition 19. Condition 20 would be that no shipping activities are to originate on this site. Meaning you're not to do any job of shipping activities. I don't think that's in the spirit of a contractor's yard. I don't think this whole thing is in the spirit, as Clark mentioned, of a contractor's yard but I think we help get it there by I limiting what we do to strictly contracting activities for those sorts. So you shouldn't be using that office as an origination or jobbing office. You shouldn't be bringing in equipment and turning it around and shipping it out. Bringing in materials and supplies and shipping them out. Mayor Hamilton: Those are the three additional conditions. One tractor trailer in inventory. That would be 19. Number 20 is no operation from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.. 21 is no shipping activities. Councilman Boyt: What I mean by that, and I didn't do a very good job of describing it is something that's not typical of a landscaping type operation. Maybe we need a cleared definition on that by staff if it passes. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a second on that motion? ' Councilman Johnson: Let me ask for clarification on this point 21 there. Do you mean operating like a transit facility? Where he's hauling for other people goods and services so he's got a commercial vehicle coming in here and being maintained like a trucking company? Councilman Boyt: Something that he's not making direct use of would probably 1 cover it. 1 53 ' '',V; IICity Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 IICouncilman Johnson: Are you going to break these as three separate motions or are you going to lump them all together? IIMayor Hamilton: No, he wanted to amend the original motion to bring in three additional conditions. IICouncilman Boyt: That's how I made it. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. IMayor Hamilton: I don't know how we can limit to one tractor trailer. It's like in a grocery store and saying you can only have two people in at one time II because you might have too many cars in the lot. That's ridiculous. I don't understand it. I don't think you understand contractor's business. You ought to understand it before you try to limit the way they make a living. You wanted to make a comment about the number of tractor trailers. IIJeff Carlson: All of the conditions that you've outlined, including two of the three amendments, are liveable. You're right, however, that one tractor trailer II would effectively put him out of business because his operation is of the size that needs the units that he is describing. It's not possible for you to limit that. It's just not possible. The other, the condition 19, did I understand, is that the timeframe within the ordinance itself or is that a different II timeframe? Councilman Boyt: No, what I'm saying is the timeframe within the ordinance says I you may operate from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. What I'm saying is, there are to be no heavy equipment operating at any other hour. IIJeff Carlson: Inbetween those? Councilman Boyt: Right. Just clarifying that we don't have heavy equipment running. IJeff Carlson: I don't think that's a problem either. It's the number and that really gets to the intensity or size. I understand it's an emotional thing and II it's a subject that was debated that way at the Planning Commission. My only point would be that the staff did a very good and thorough job on this. He actually had to pass 20 conditions coming in, 3 more now. He's worked very well II and very closely with staff and condition 18 just can't, it's the same as saying no. I guess my point would be that it really isn't, or I question whether it's really necessary. If there was a safety problem. If there was a problem getting out onto the highway, he will have to deal with the Highway Department I on TH 212. He's talked to them and at any point in time that he's required to use his land and deal with the highway, he's ready to do that. I would urge you to do 20 instead of 21, if that's possible because number 18 is really just one I that he's not capable of cooperation from my client. He's willing to, I think it's clear and meet with your staff, he's willing to adhere to any reasonable condition to operate. IIEverett Olson: I live out there. I live at 2675 Flying Cloud Drive. I'd have you come down there and visit and watch that traffic at 5:00 in the morning until 9:00 in the morning, and the same thing in the evening. If you're going k7 IIto cross that road with tractors and trailers, I'll guarantee you that there II54 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 ' will be people. .. I've lived there for 23 ears and it's Y just gradually getting worse and worse and worse. Every fall the railroad tracks seems to set that swamp on fire. .. Every year they've had to...and this year it won't be long so if you can tell me how you can cross that highway with tractors and trailers like I said at 6:00 in the morning and the same thing in the evening without somebody getting killed in there... The sugar factory, all those tractors and trailers come out there. Just come down and live with me for a week will you? ...that will change your mind. Mayor Hamilton: Traffic keeps getting worse everywhere I guess. ' Councilman Boyt: I think you've put your finger on maybe the heart of the issues. We're talking about intensity of use. We're talking about an ordinance, as Clark has said, it was never intended to allow this kind of contractor's yard to operate. We're talking about a type of use that Chaska doesn't allow. A type of use that Eden Prairie, Minnetonka doesn't allow and we're talking about putting it on one of the worse pieces of highway we've got. I think it's very reasonable to say that you can't use any tractor trailers. The last contractor's yard we approved, which is as I recall the Planning Commission was against that one as well, has no tractor trailers. Has all pick ups but since we have one in the City that has a tractor trailer, I can't see being more restrictive on you than them but I can certainly see being no more lenient. I speak in favor of my own amendment. Councilman Horn: Could we get the Attorney to comment? Mayor Hamilton: Can you limit them or not? ' Roger Knutson: I guess I'd have to defer to your City Engineer. If the City Engineer indicates that there is a serious traffic safety problem that would be created by tractor trailers crossing and entering that property, and they can document it, then yes it could be a reasonable condition. On the other hand, if you don't think that can be documented, if your City Engineer is not comfortable with that, then that in all likelihood would not. Councilman Boyt: What about intensity of use? Roger Knutson: I'm not sure of the question. Councilman Boyt: I mean that we're running 4 or 5 tractor trailers from time to time out of there. That's intensity of use. A separate issue. Roger Knutson: I guess I would again defer, let him tell me how dangerous that is. I don't know. Mayor Hamilton: What's intense on 39 acres? Don't you have to look at that? Gary, do you have any comment on that? I Gary Warren: I was just going to say, if MnDot is willing to give them an access permit on TH 212, it's their charge. That's one of their responsibilities. I'm sure that giving access permits, if they consider it an unsafe condition, that they would not allow it. I haven't specifically done any safety studies per se but in this case, it's controlled by MnDot. 55 rCity Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Do y ou have a letter from MnDot or anything saying? Harry Lindbery: No, I do not. Jeff Carlson: We could get that as one of the requirements if you wanted to. He has talked with them and certainly that could me made a, he has to get it. Roger Knutson: It's a requirement whether you say so or not. They've got to get an access permit or they can't come on the highway. Councilman Johnson: It's covered by number 5. Mayor Hamilton: I can see right-in/right-out access requirement more than trying to limit the size of his operation. Councilman Boyt: I don't understand why we should be trying to create an opportunity for a more intense contractor's yard in an area that is underneath residential development. They look down on and by that kind of traffic. ' Mayor Hamilton: What kind of traffic. I don't know what kind of traffic you're bying. You've got maybe 5 trucks in and out once a day, if that. That's not very intense. Councilman Boyt: That piece of highway along there, you know, we all know is not anybody's idea of a good place to be turning across of trying to get across. ' People do it. Tractor trailers probably do it. Mayor Hamilton: If we attempt to limit Mr. Lindbery's access to the highway and - use of it and use of his land, then we should also go to Gedney Pickle and say, you can only have 5 trucks in and out of here a day. I don't care how many pickles you send around the world but you can only use so many trucks. It's the same thing. It's the same thing when you're talking about traffic in and out using the road right? Be reasonable. Tim Erhart: I think the difference here and what the Planning Commission saw was that this is an area that's zoned A-2. Many, many points we talked about. One was access and one was the people on top of the hill looking down and we came to the conclusion that somehow our original intent in the ordinance of contractor's yards as acknowledged here, was somehow getting misconstrued into ' an industrial park. As a result, we're taking action to work with staff to try and tighten up the contractor's yards provisions. In a very unusual event, the Planning Commission I believe in an almost unanimous vote, voted against the ' proposal even though the way we're interpretting the zoning ordinance would allow it. We voted against it. ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, it was a 4 to 2 vote. Tim Erhart: I think it's inconsistent. We feel to allow this to go in, and I think I agree with Bill that we should try to restrict it as much as possible to be comparable and consistent with contractor's yards. Mayor Hamilton: I know that you're opposed to contractor's yards period and I certainly disagree with that. I think they're a very important part of a community and there is a place for them and they do a good service to the 56 X8111City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 community. I don't care if it's A-2 or what it is. A-2 is a good place for them and Bill said he doesn't think this was the intent of that ordinance. I don't know what the intent was. As far as I'm concerned, this was the intent of it was to have these types of operations working within your community. The same with Merle Volk's. I see no problem with that. They function within the community just fine. As that area grows and expands, they'll be gone because - they don't want to be near residential or commercial development. So it's going to be the same thing with the Lindbery's. As soon as that develops there, they'll be gone. Tim Erhart: Unfortunately it's not an automatic thing that they're gone as we've found in other areas of the city. Mayor Hamilton: We have an amendment to a motion on the table. Councilman Horn: Can you repeat the amendment again? Mayor Hamilton: The amendment was three conditions to be added. One, that 1 tractor trailer be allowed on the premises, to be included in inventory. No more than one. That there be no operation from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. . and that no shipping activities be allowed in or out. Councilman Horn: Was 19 left that way or was it left that they would have to comply with MnDot's requirement for safety? Mayor Hamilton: He's going to have to do that anyway. They have to comply with MnDot. 1 Councilman Johnson: That's condition 5. Councilman Boyt: I think we're talking about a lot of issues when we talk about 19 and I'd like to see if this passes with 19 in it. If it doesn't, we've already got the developer indicating that the other two are acceptable. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded an amendment to the motion to include the following three conditions: ' 19. A total of 1 tractor trailer be in inventory for the contractor's yard. 20. No operation of equipment take place on the site between the hours of , 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. 21. No shipping activities originate from the site. 1 Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the amendment, Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Johnson and Councilman Horn voted in opposition to the amendment and the amendment failed with a vote of 1 to 3. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend the original motion I to include the above two conditions numbered 20 and 21. All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. 57 182 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit Request #88-11 subject to the following conditions: 1. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing, berming or landscaping. A proposed screening plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. ' 2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through h Saturday. Work on Sundays and Holidays is not permitted. 3. Light sources shall be shielded. ' 4. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 5. Compliance with the conditions of MnDot including installation of a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDot. 6. Installation of bituminous driveways, parking areas and loading areas. ' 7. Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9, 1988. ' 8. Protection of the two septic system sites during construction. 9. Installation of a holding tank. ' 10. The building must be sprinklered. 11. Provision of one handicap parking space. 12. Contractor's yard activities only as defined in the zoning ordinance, are permitted. There shall be no shipping or other non-contractor's yard activities. 13. The applicant obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits. 14. All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and disposed of properly. 15. The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100 foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales. ' 16. The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff Creek. ' 17. The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer. 18. The applicant submit an equipment inventory. 19. No operation of equipment take place on the site between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. [E7 1 58 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 20. No shipping activities originate from the site. 11 All voted in favor and the motion carried. II SOUTHWEST COALITION OF COMMUNITIES UPDATE, CITY PLANNER. II Barbara Dacy: I don't have anything more to report. Mayor Hamilton: Did everybody get a letter from Bob Lindahl today or yesterday, I whevever it was? It kind of dealt with this Southwest Coalition. Did you get a copy of that? They want us to contribute $100,000.00 over the next 3 years. If we do that, TH 212 is impacted and it moves that process up 16 months. I just II read it this afternoon so I can't remember everything that was in there. Another one was 21 months it moves it up but it was all the communities, including the County. Communities of Eden Prairie, Chaska, Chanhassen and the II County would pay $100,000.00 each. It was a $400,000.00 payout of those four government bodies. Clark, do you remember more about it than that? Councilman Horn: No. I didn't take it very seriously at this point, especially II with the specifics. The part that I did take seriously is the fact that we had committed at some time in the past that this thing would be coming up to us again and as a matter of fact it's the same procedure that we used to accelerate II TH 5. But the actual amounts and the total amounts to be contributed have not been discussed by the approved coalition. That's merely his recommendation. I would certainly have comments to make at the next coalition meeting regarding the specific numbers. II Mayor Hamilton: I'm trying to remember more about the letter. It was something to do with if we came up with $400,000.00 then his law firm, now he's the II councilman from Chaska. He works for a law firm, I don't remember the name of it, they are going to try to find matching federal funds, which apparently he feels they can find so it would be $800,000.00. That's why the whole project II gets moved up. Councilman Horn: Also MnDot would contribute. Councilman Johnson: Are we saying $400,000.00 would give us 16 months closer to II TH 212? Mayor Hamilton: Right. I Councilman Johnson: My first gut reaction to that is, that's a lot to pay for 16 months on a project that's probably going to be many, many years yet going. II It's a drop in the bucket in the length of the project. Mayor Hamilton: It was 16 months and 21 months and I can't remember what each II one was. I'll get you a copy of the letter because I think it was worth reading. I can't remember all of it. Councilman Horn: I think it's too preliminary at this point. We need to get a II coalition meeting where we finalize the details and then we can talk about it. 1 59 II IICity Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 IIMayor Hamilton: The next item was the Volk annexation. Clark, Don and I met with the City Manager of Chaska and Bob Rudtke and Bob Lindahl two weeks ago. II Discussed the annexation, deannexation and basically agreed, we both agreed with the position of the other that a swap be made. Basically what it amounts to is we're kind of over a barrel and it's like playing a poker game when the other II guy's got all the cards and he won't give you any. Councilman Johnson: Yours are face up and his are face down? IIMayor Hamilton: He's got all the cards period. Councilman Horn: He's got all the cards period but if we go along with this we may get a tip. II Mayor Hamilton: At least they're willing to do a land swap as was presented to us a while back which was some property by Gedney Pickle so they could expand I and still be in the City of Chanhassen and a remainder of the Arboretum property would then become Chanhassen property so the Arboretum would be 99% within the City of Chanhassen. That seems to be as good a deal as we're going to get and I based on the Attorney's comments that if you don't take it, you'll get nothing because they will not be obligated to give us anything and the referees are almost assured to go ahead with the annexation. 1 Councilman Horn: It turns out when you're not free standing, you don't have very many cards in an annexation procedure. Much as I don't like what's going on in this particular situation, I'm even more concerned about the future I because I see other potential properties that would be candidates for this along our border even though at this time Chaska says they have no interest. In talking with Dick Pearson, he said part of the reason that the Village was I organized when it was, was to protect some of the land in the area that was going to be annexed by Chaska and the property owners at that time didn't want to go to Chaska because it was cheaper to be in the Village. It turns out with all the development and things that are going on in Chanhassen now, it's II probably cheaper for those property owners to be part of Chaska and there's nothing to prevent then from giving us more requests to join Chaska. As I understand, at least the way they explained the annexation procedures to us, the II cards are all in their favor. I haven't heard Roger's comment on that yet but that's what they led us to believe and I was under the premise that we felt we should take what they were offering in terms of actual land area rather than go IIthrough the annexation procedure and end up with nothing. Roger Knutson: It's really difficult to generalize about these things. You have to look at them on a case by case basis.. . We fight a lot of annexation.. .most II of them are fought between cities and townships. It's rare to have. ..between two cities. It doesn't happen that often. II Councilman Horn: Don't you agree that a free standing trade center has the advantage in this case? They can provide services that we can't because we're outside the MUSA. IRoger Knutson: They can provide sewer and you can't provide sewer and sewer's critical to doing something, I'd say that's a very, very big card in their hand. [7 II II 60 05 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 I Mayor Hamilton: There are several factors here that I think we need to look at. I 1 I'm very much in favor of the annexation and you need to realize that the action taken was not by the City of Chaska. It was taken by the property owner. He requested that Chaska annex his property. I think it's good for the whole area, II I've said that before and I firmly believe that. There's 40 acres there that will develop into commercial property, industrial property. The taxes off that are going to benefit the school district, the County and the city of Chaska but II it will benefit the City of Chanhassen also because certainly some of the people who work there will buy homes. Certainly they'll shop in the City of Chanhassen so I think it's a benefit to the entire economic area that we live in and I think that's an important factor to look at. I think it's important also that II we work well with our neighbors, Chaska which it was a very congenial meeting and I think even though they held all the cards, it was from my aspect and I think from Clark's too, that he saw the position we were in. Chaska was not the II one that was the driving force in this but it was Mr. Volk. We understood their position and they're certainly willing to give some property that they City may be able to develop. Certainly with the Gedney, if they expand, why that's II certainly a potential for us. We're not totally losing out on this and our negotiations with Chaska have been very amenable and very congenial and I think it's important that they remain that way. Councilman Horn: I would like though for us to look into what we can do to II protect any other properties from potentials for that such as Gedney Pickle and the Glass property. I Councilman Johnson: One thing we do have on our side is that even though they're a free standing economic center, the Metropolitan Waste Control II Commission still has control over their sewage treatment plant that they own. They did say you have enough capacity to support this 40 acres but I do believe I remember that they really emphasized that they don't have that much extra capacity to support anything else. I Mayor Hamilton: They have to do the same thing as we do. They have to take 40 acres off someplace else. They have an internal MUSA line similar to us so when II they pick up 40 acres, they do have to take 40 acres out someplace else which they will do. There is a swap within their City taking place also. Councilman Horn: But they're already serving Gedney Pickle. It's already in I their capacity. They don't have to expand their capacity. Councilman Johnson: Wasn't Gedney on the previous swap? I Mayor Hamilton: No. Councilman Boyt: I remember back, gosh it must be almost a year ago when we II discussed the Merle Volk •interest in developing a contractor's yard a bit more intensively than we had in the past. I supported that effort and Tom and I lost the struggle. We're sort of seeing some fallout from that. I can't argue that II we were right or wrong but we're seeing a result of that decision. I think it's important in this decision that we send a signal to other property owners, to the City of Chaska and to the people in Chanhassen. I'm with the rest of you, I II I faced the facts here of the case and have, I think from the begining when we first starting looking at it, but I think it's appropriate for us to play our one card. Not that it gets more from Chaska but I think it sends a signal that II 61 II ' City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 needs to be sent and I think our card is that we file an action to contest this. [-- ' We want to cooperate with Chaska and the other surrounding communities but I don't think we want to send the signal to anybody that we're going to give it away. So along the lines of the direction that Don has been proposing, it's appropriate for us to file an action. ' Councilman Horn: Are you suggesting then that we don't support an amendment to go along with the annexation? Councilman Boyt: At this point, that's what I'm saying. Mayor Hamilton: You'd rather take nothing. Councilman Boyt: No. ' Mayor Hamilton: That's what you'd get. Councilman Horn: What happens then is if it annexed, and the results are dealt with in the annexation court and Chaska has told us that if it comes to that, they would be under no obligation to make the same trade if it went to court. Councilman Boyt: I understand that. At the same time I don't downplay the ' impact of the one card we have which is time. It's expensive to everyone but there's a certain value in simply going through what in all likelihood is a motion but it's a motion that has an impact. There are motioned as an impact. ' It costs us very little money to carry this one step further. Mayor Hamilton: For what reason? I don't understand your reason. If we're ' going to be paying Attorney's fees for nothing. If we lose, which we've been told we're assured to do, we're going to gain nothing. If you put your pluses and minuses and you list than down, the minuses far outweight the pluses. Councilman Boyt: There's a ton of minuses on this thing. I think there's one plus. The plus is that we are not leaving legal avenues untouched. We're doing all we can to defend the situation and in all likelihood it will come to a quick resolution right where it is now but the difference will be we will have exhausted legal remedy. Councilman Horn: And we will not have the 40 acres. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know why we need to get attorneys involved in everything. We can resolve this without attorneys. Councilman Horn: Besides that, we probably will lose Gedney in the process because one of the areas that we would pick up is in the area that they are proposing to expand. We may lose them anyway but that practically guarantees it. Councilman Johnson: Actually, if they give us this property west of Gedney in this switch, would that make it more difficult for Gedney to argue for than to be annexed into Chaska? [77 Councilman Horn: Right. ' 62 1 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 v7 Councilman Boyt: I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Councilman Johnson: What you're saying I believe is let's take it one step here, file our petition or our protest of this and then do the land swap. Once we file you're saying that Chaska will remove their offer. Don Ashworth: When we met with them, if you recall, I did state that I would be recommending that this item be turned over to the Attorney's office and that I anticipated that the solution would come through that form of a process. I think that that is what Bill is basically saying. I think that Roger's office, to double verify our position and if an out of court settlement is required, to have him notify us of that. I really don't think we're adding that much time or cost. Councilman Horn: You're saying Roger hasn't researched this? Don Ashworth: Roger has researched it, that's correct but he has not gotten to the point of researching it to the extent of literally filing the case. If you feel we're in a position to pass it, and come to agreement, then go ahead and proceed in that fashion and that will be cheaper but from our meeting at Chaska, I think my position to them was that I anticipated that this item would end up being resolved passed through the Attorney's office. Councilman Horn: As I understood it, we were going to get an interpretation from our attorney because our interpretations up until this point had been gotten from their office. Now I thought that we would have that tonight. Mayor Hamilton: I think Roger did give us that. ' Councilman Horn: I guess I'm missing what we're going to gain by this except stalling and spending money and possibility jeopardizing the swap. Councilman Boyt: Listening to what Don has said and I talked to Don earlier, I don't think we're jeopardizing anything. I think what we're doing actually is we're saying to the community as a whole, we exhausted our legal remedies. At this point we haven't. We've exhausted our good faith remedies but now what we're doing is we're talking about a land swap and I don't care how you look at it, it's not even. It may be the best deal we can get but it sure as heck isn't even in anything other than pure geographic acreage. Given that, I think that we, the community, deserves to know that the legal remedies were exhausted and that this was in fact the legal answer. ' Mayor Hamilton: Why can't you look to the economic benefits of the entire area? This entire area is going to benefit economically. It's to the benefit of this entire community and every resident living here to say fine, we've reached agreement. We'll swap the property. It's going to benefit this whole region economically. Why waste more time, more money, which we don't have screwing around with this thing? Councilman Boyt: I don't think we're talking about much more money. I don't know, we might be talking about $500.00? ' Mayor Hamilton: I'm not up to throwing $500.00 away. 63 ' 1 r�(- ' - City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's throwing it away. It's my perspective. It doesn't sound like it's going to carry the day but I think it sort of seals the door that we exhausted all our remedies. Councilman Horn: I have another question. We also said at that meeting that we would come up with an actual dollar difference to our tax rolls of this property ' versus the Volk property. Do we have those numbers? I didn't see those in my packet. Don Ashworth: I was proposing that the item be turned over to the Attorney. ' This is not the correct article that should have accompanied this item. I don't know if it was the one in the Villager but the one there came down to a recommendation that staff would be recommending that the item be turned over to ' the Attorney's office to seek final resolution or to defend the City. Mayor Hamilton: I move that we turn this over to the Attorney's office to ' settle this damn thing. Councilman Boyt: That was my point. Why make it so complicated? ' Mayor Hamilton: I certainly don't expect it to go to Court and I would expect that the Attorney would settle this thing between attorneys with one phone call. Councilman Johnson: If that's a motion that needs a second, I'll second it. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to turn the Merle Volk annexation issue over to the City Manager's office to settle. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' BUDGET WORKSESSION: The Council decided to hold the Budget Work Session on Monday, October 3, 1988 at 6:30 p.m.. Councilman I Boyt: think ' y t nk there s a really important point that we haven't discussed yet this evening and that's the City Planner position that we're ' advertising for. The reason I think that's an important point is because I think as I understand the ad, we're going out to get somebody that's not as qualified as the person we're losing. I think that's a mistake given the ' intensity of what the City is going through. Councilman Horn: What led you to believe that? ' Councilman Boyt: Because we're advertising for someone with 3 to 5 years experience and we're offering less than we're paying our current person. It doesn't figure that we're going to get somebody that good or better. Mayor Hamilton: Well we did last time. ' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us advertise for a Director of Community Development. Pay the person $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 more than what we're offering now and go after somebody that could lay the groundwork to build what I think is going to have to be a department that has more time to think about 64 i` 1 City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 where we're going, and how we're going to get there and probably a department of 1 2 1/2 people rather than 2 people. Mayor Hamilton: A community development director is a different position. ' Councilman Boyt: It depends on how you define the position. I define the position as our chief planner who would also be involved in working with ' community development but would be the person that keeps planning coordinated. That speaks from as much experience or more than what we're losing and it carries us through what's going to be a real intense, when TH 5 opens up, if we're busy now, what are we going to be like when there's a four lane highway into town? Mayor Hamilton: I'm in favor of a community development director but this is just a part of what I've been harping on for the last couple of years now. We need to review our total staff picture and determine where we're at and where we're going to go. As part of the budget process, Don and I have done some talking about that already and we got our backs up against the wall now because we're losing our planner and probably our assistant planner too. She's going to have her baby and be gone for several months and may not return, you never know so we're in a difficult situation where we'll probably have to go out and hire a consultant to help us out. But I think as a part of our budget process, in fact I don't think, I know I'm going to be making recommendation staffing wise, that we need to make some adjustments. Like I say, Don and I have talked about that preliminarily and I've been doing some work on it. We're going to talk about it some more and I think we need to talk about that as a part of our budget session. I know that there's a lot of urgency to getting a planner. Councilman Boyt: We've got the ads going in. All we're talking about doing is increasing by $3,000.00 and changing some of the responsibilities. This step is an important one to take and we need to take it now or we're going to run ads for somebody that's not going to fill the job that we need filled. Councilman Horn: And we're going to fill the job before our next session? We're going to fill that position before we have our budget meeting? Councilman Boyt: No, we're not but we're advertising and why put an ad out there that's not going to attract the kind of people we're looking for? Councilman Horn: Why put an ad out there prematurely if we're going to discuss the subject in depth? Why go off half-cocked? , Don Ashworth: I've got to fill the position. I have to start it. Right now it's going to be potentially December 1st, assuming that I can get the ad in the newspaper. Councilman Johnson: With this ad, I don't see a lot of problem with the beginning salary at where it is but I see 3 years experience as the stumbling block here because you're going to have a lot of people looking at, somebody coming out of grad school who's got 3 years experience now, $32,000.00 is a pretty good salary for them. Councilman Horn: This thing is not capped. It's not capped with years of experience and it's not capped in salary. ' 65 i zty Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I think the ears of y experience is too low. ' Councilman Boyt: It depends on whether you're talking about our existing hiring policy or what any other business would do if they weren't this City. But if we have the hiring policy that we're not going to pay beyond the mid-point, you ' definitely are talking about a cap. When you describe the job as a number of years experience and a started salary, you have described the people that are going to apply for that job. ' Councilman Horn: But you're putting us over a barrel unnecessarily. This ad is going out. There's nothing that prevents this ad from going out. If we get somebody with 5 years experience and $35,000.00, we're going to have time to ' discuss that before we actually start screening these applicants. Mayor Hamilton: I think there's a lot of good people out there in that range. ' I can't believe that 5 years experience is not adequate. Councilman Boyt: We have a resource. Somebody who's been in the job market and in talking to Barbara and saying, what would we need to get somebody, given the ' way the market is now, her description was, you need to pay $35,000.00 to $36,000.00 if you're talking that kind of power. I think we're talking that kind of power and we've got somebody who knows what the market is. We don't ' lose anything if we run this ad and indicate more experience and the kind of salary range she's talking about. We lose nothing. Mayor Hamilton: When we got Barbara Dacy, we were in the same situation we are now. Here's a person who came and applied for the job because she wanted to move back to Minnesota. I suppose if she were coming in here now and applying for this job, you'd tell you take a hike but she turned out to be an excellent ' person for us. .. .in talking to her, I'm sure that's right. She had no experience at that time to speak of. We were paying her a low salary. ' Councilman Johnson: This city has changed a lot. Mayor Hamilton: We're still growing but we're still moving up the ladder. We didn't require 3 to 5 years experience last time, now we are. We're moving up along the way the City is moving up. I feel very strongly that we can find another Barb Dacy out there. Another Jo Ann Olsen. I think they're out there. Councilman Boyt: I'm sure they're out there. Mayor Hamilton: And they'll come to work here for that money. I really think ' so. Councilman Horn: I don't think we have to decide that.. . ' Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's worth taking the risk. We're putting the ad in. We do have to decide that. I Councilman Horn: The ad is minimu. It's not capped. You think people only with 3 years experience are going to respond to that ad? I don't know how many ads you've put in but everytime I place an ad, I get a whole collage of people [71 that respond to these things and they don't limit themselves to whatever you put 66 > .; 1City Council Meeting - September 12, 1988 in the paper. Councilman Johnson: It does indicate certain things though Clark. When I look at an ad, and I see 3 to 5 years experience or something in there and I'm sitting at 10, I don't bother messing with that. Councilman Horn: Do you want somebody with 10? I don't think we're that 1 grossly.. . Councilman Johnson: There may be people with 10 that are in that range. I 1 think 3 is way too low. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 67 1 II 4 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION I UNEDITEI CREGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli , David Headla and Ladd Conrad arrived after the first item. MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON ' PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report. ' Emmings: Do you have anything additional? You understand that what we' re looking at in front of us right now is the old original plan without moving the church over? Westside Baptist Representative: No changes . Emmings: That' s fine with you? Westside Baptist Representative: Yes . Emmings : Are there any members of the public here that want to comment on this item? Batzli. moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla : Do they intend to give you some borings on the septic sites? Dacy: Yes. They have followed up and done additional borings . . . Headla : That ' s all I ..have. Batzli. : My comment from last time still applies . I would like to see us being able to work with the Metropolitan Council on the MUSA line application for a site like this where it ' s obvious that it ' s near a ' wetland. The interceptor is going to run right through there and I can' t believe the little consideration that went into being able to hook them up. But having said that, I don ' t have any questions. Ellson: No comments from me. It looks fine. , II Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 2 C Erhart : I was going to say, you probably have the impression that the City of Chanhassen doesn' t want you to hook up to this interceptor. I think I can speak for most of the Commission members here and not here, it would be to our . . .if you and other property owners along that line could hook up to it and I find it amazing that the Metropolitan Council can ' t somehow find it in their way to allow you to do that and I think perhaps what you see in here a little bit is simply that we 've been through this in the past and it' s always kind of that frustration so somehow accept that as an apology. If you can find a way to hook up, we' re all behind you. Again , . . .and it' s been real frustrating . Other than that, that' s the only comments I have. 1 Emmings : I don' t have anything to add . I agree with Tim' s comments. It does seem like a reasonable thing to do that the Met Council would allow you to hook up to that interceptor that is going right through your property but I 'm not surprised. It' s amazing but also kind of typical . Headla : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-9 for a church to be located outside the MUSA line with the following conditions . The 12 that the staff listed and I 'd like to add a 13th. That the staff, I think Brian had an excellent point . I 'd like to see the staff make an earnest attempt to negotiate, to see if we could get them hooked up to the MUSA line. Emmings : That wouldn' t be a condition on this approval because we can' t really put that as a condition. Headla : We can ask the staff to do that . ' Emmings : We can ask the staff to do that. Is there a second? Batzli : Second . 1 Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-9 for a church to be located outside the MUSA line with the following conditions : 1. The applicant must receive preliminary plat approval for the subject site by September of 1989 , unless the property owners agree to have the parcel remain as one undivided lot . 1 2. The two approved septic sites must be staked and preserved prior to receiving a building permit. 3 . Provide a landscaping plan which provides screening between the vehicular access areas and abutting right-of-way as required in Section 20-1190 of the Zoning Ordinance. c 4. The applicant shl receive an access permit from MnDot prior to installation of al the church driveway. I 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 3 C 5. A fire lane must be installed for the entire length on either the east or west side of the building. The fire lane, at least 20 feet in width , must comply with the City of Chanhassen ' s requirement for an all weather surface meeting urban standards . Whichever side is chosen, a clear access must be maintained by designation of a "Fire Lane" . 6 . The main driveway shall have "No Parking Fire Lane" signs installed . 7. The applicant shall provide a revised grading plan with storm sewer calculations which verify the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate and all storm sewer capacities as part of the final review process . 8. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. ' 9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. ' 10. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off site clean-up caused by the construction of this site. ' 11. All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place, shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for periodic checks of the erosion controls and shall make all repairs promptly. All erosion controls shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced. ' 12. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbing shall be submitted as part of the final review process . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ' PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10. 75 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6270 GLENDALE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, COUNTRY OAKS , DAVE JOHNSON. Public Present : ' Name Address Don Brandt 3801 Leslee Curve Tom Poppitz 4000 Glendale Drive J. Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Elaine Dunn 3820 Leslee Curve Ralph & Carol Kant 3820 Lone Cedar Circle Vern Isham 4030 Leslee Curve Dick Kinsman 3920 Crestview Drive I ' I Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 4 II ( Paul Nitzke 4010 Glendale Drive I Mike Ryan 3850 Maple Circle Peter & Lola Warhol 3831 Leslee Curve Craig Courtney 3901 Crestview Drive II Rick & Mae Vanderbruggen 4010 Glendale Drive Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report . IILadd Conrad arrived during this item. Vice Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . II Dave Johnson: I 'm Dave Johnson with Shorewood Oaks Development. My understanding, to bring up the first thing that was brought up was the II setback. My understanding is that we need a 90 foot setback at the setback line, not at the street line. Perhaps I was misinformed earlier but that' s my understanding of it. If that ' s the case, there are only two lots that that doesn' t work on and they are very large lots in the corner . I Emmings : Let ' s stop right here. Is his understanding correct or incorrect? I Dacy: The 90 foot width at the setback line is only for cul-de-sac lots and the lots on that curve, the City in the past has not considered lots on curves as cul-de-sac lots . When you had earlier brought up that it may be an option to create a bubble on the street. We reviewed the plans based on what was submitted and that would be the recommendation that somehow that that issue would be resolved. II Dave Johnson : I ' ve had some discussions with your engineer here about the bubble effect. We could easily cure that problem by putting a bubble in . He has reservations about , if reservations is the right word , about putting a bubble on a curve. I didn't see that as significant a problem myself. One of the things that with those lots in the corner , the ones that have the narrower setback up front, there ' s no logical reason why the house would be set that far forward anyway. I 'm a builder also . I may or may not be building all the houses in this subdivision but we wouldn ' t have a problem with stipulating a setback farther back so the 100 foot II would work and not put the bubble in if that would resolve the issue because the lot is plenty big enough. It will have a substantial rear yard. Those are two of the biggest lots in there. There' s got to be some II way to resolve that issue. Whether it' s with a bubble, which doesn ' t appear to be acceptable or getting variance on where the lot lines would go . With respect to the sewer issue and the lift station, we did a little further looking into that but we haven' t had time to get back with Larry II on it but it would appear to us as though when this mini-subdivision of those several smaller parcels there were calculated, the gravity flow system will work if everybody develops their property at once. Our problem is that the property to the south of us is where the gravity sewer would flow through is not being developed so until it does , it appears to be necessary to put in a lift station to temporarily push it out towards II the east . Then when the property immediately to the south is developed , then that lift station could be removed and the property would work II II ' Planning Commission Meeting ' September 7, 1988 - Page 5 C ' gravity along with everything else . Now that ' s , as Larry said , is an issue that will be addressed later but it' s my understanding that that' s the reason for a lift station and it would be a temporary problem. Other ' than that, I don' t know what to tell you. I have my engineer Ray Brandt is here if you ' ve got any questions that are of a technical nature that I can' t answer . Emmings : Okay. I ' ll tell you what we' ll do , if there are people that have concerns here, we' ll let them raise their concerns and if you want another opportunity to respond to their comments , we' ll give you that 1 opportunity. Craig Courtney: I live at 3901 Crestview in Pleasant Acres . I 'm also the ' President of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. There are 66 members in the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and they are all quite against this development. The main reason that most of them are ' against it is , in 1968 Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association was given a deeded lake access lot. Now this land that' s being developed as Outlot A and Government Lot 5 is listed as part of this property that would get deeded lake home access but it was deeded to Pleasant Acres Homeowners ' Association. The deed states that . This is not going to be Pleasant Acres. This is going to be Country Oaks . Even though they' re deeded that property, there' s going to be some sort of conflict , we feel , in the fact that Pleasant Acres owns the property. We maintain it through all of our taxes . We pay the taxes on it. What is going to be done to the residents that buy this property in Country Oaks? Hereto the policy that we have with the Lake Association Beachlot . It states in our corporation papers , ' the people who use this will be members of Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association . We feel that these 27 additional lots along with the 66 will put the number , out of 100 ' people that could have and will use that deeded lake access lot. We feel it ' s very overcrowding that small 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot . Emmings : Is there anything in your By-laws or in the papers under which you' re organized that forces you to permit these people in your organization? ' Craig Courtney: The only thing that we see that would force him is , this Quit Claim deed was given to Pleasant Acres Addition 1 and Addition 2 and on unplotted lands now owned by me in Sections 6, Township 116 , Range 23 and Government Lot 5, Township 116, Range 23 so in essence, if it is legal that they are getting deeded lake access to this property, that would be the only thing that would say that they can have it because the Quit Claim Deed is in Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association ' s name. Our Articles of Incorporation state that members of this corporation shall be limited to residents of the area known as Pleasant Acres , Chanhassen Village, Carver County, Minnesota . Emmings : This particular issue sounds like it might be a legal issue between you and the developer of this property and later on the homeowners of that property. It probably isn ' t something that we can get involved ' in. Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 6 C Craig Courtney: Then I ' ll drop that point. I also have a concern. The Pleasant Acres is stated as all large, people consider them 1/2 acre lots and Country Oaks is coming in and half of the lots are just barely the minimum size. We don ' t feel that this is going to do Pleasant Acres any good at all . There was mention of the size of the homes and the price range of the homes and this land is, in my own view of the land, is not land that you would develop homes of this size and price range of homes is going to be developed. My personal objection is to the size of the lots and I guess that was it. Then if we may ask for some direction for the Homeowners Association and may be something we can' t be helped. It will be ironed out between the developer and Pleasant Acres . Emmings: It seems to me that what you ' re talking about there is private legal rights as opposed to anything that the City could address in this application. Craig Courtney: Let me ask you how you interpretted your Section 5 of your Zoning Regulations as far as the use of non-conforming use property? It states that non-conforming use property, which this lot is , shall not be expanded or enlarged. You' re not expanding or enlarging the property but you' re expanding the use tremendously. ' Emmings: You' re talking about the beachlot now? Craig Courtney: Right . Emmings : You can ' t expand a non-conforming use and I guess I had a question about that too. In the Staff Report it seemed primarily to address whether or not they would be allowed to have more boats down there but it would seem to me that having more people using it , 27 families or whatever , would expand the use of the property. Why does it affect the docking of boats and not the use of the property by more people? Dacy: Just to make clear that the Pleasant Acres beachlot, whatever existed when we adopted the Beachlot Ordinance in 1982, the number of boats, the number of docks and the number of canoe racks and so on, all of that existing use is grandfathered in. When we talked to the City Attorney about that he said , you can ' t authorize another dock or another boat or anything that the City had on record occuring on the Pleasant Acres Beachlot . The City really could not tell the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association that property owner A could not use the beachlot versus property owner B. His feeling was that because part of the property was legally described as part of Pleasant Acres Subdivision, that that ' s going to have to be a matter between the developer and the existing Homeowners Association to work out who uses it or if they get to use it or whatever . It ' s part of that private Restrictions and Covenants which the City does not have a party to. What we do have a party to is that we will not allow more boats or docks located on that beachlot . Craig Courtney: If you adopted that as non-conformance use, the number of boats , docks and you do not adopt the number of parcels of land that were to use that property at that time? At that time there was Pleasant Acres 1 and 2. There was Outlot A and there was Government Lot B. That' s two Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 7 C ' extra other than Pleasant Acres 1 and 2 and now you ' re going to have 27 more. Dacy: That ' s where I 'm saying that the City Attorney is saying that the private property owners and the Pleasant Acres homeowners have to work that out . The Zoning Ordinance is only pertaining to the Conditional Use ' for a beachlot. What happens there? The number of docks . The number of boats . The City' s regulations do not apply to who gets to use that , what lots get to use that. That is contained in your document and is a private document between you and whoever owns the property as part of the Pleasant ' Acres Subdivision. Again, part of this property is described as a part of the Pleasant Acres . Part of it is not so just from me looking at it, there' s no question whether 27 lots would have the ability to use that because only half of the subject property is legally described as part of Pleasant Acres . Emmings : It would sound like your Homeowners Association should have an ' Attorney go through your papers and this situation and let you know what your options are. ' Craig Courtney: Thank you. Erhart : Didn ' t we recently pass an ordinance limiting the number of lots that can use any particular beachlot? Dacy: The ordinance reads that there ' s a 1, 000 foot radius from the beachlot but again, that ordinance applies to newly created beachlots and this is a grandfathered beachlot . Erhart : But that does limit the number of users to a beachlot. What is that number? Do you remember? Dacy: For the rural subdivisions I think we had 40 and that was based on 80% of the lots . . . Erhart : But this is residential . It would seem to me that it may or may not. ' Dick Kinsman : I live at 3920 Crestview Drive and knowing that developments of this type sometimes run into problems , have trouble and aren ' t always completed as planned , I 'm wondering what the bonding situation is or what type of guarantee you impose on the developer to know for the City' s sake as well as ours that the thing is going to look and we see it as planned? Emmings : I think the thing the City is worried about are the public improvements that the developer has to put in as part of that development . We get some financial security on those items but that ' s all . Is that right? Brown: Normally when a contractor goes in , they' ll bid the entire job. ' That means grading for the entire subdivision and the earth work involved in constructing street and utilities . They' ll bid that as one lump sum ' I Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 8 II C package. The City in turn will require the developer to post a letter of II credit for the amount of 110% of the amount that it costs for the entire project. That extra 10% is to give the City some leeway as far as administrative costs to get a contractor in there to complete the work if the contractor fails to do so . Batzli. : Those are just for the public improvements? II Brown : Usually it' s for the entire subdivision because it' s bid as one entire package so it would include grading for the lots , construction of the ponding site and landscaping . I Emmings: Does that answer your question sir? Dick Kinsman: Yes . I Jo Ann Hallgren : I live at 6860 Minnewashta Parkway which is the property II south of Country Oaks. I guess there isn' t a representative from the Park and Recreation here this evening? There was mention made about a piece of Country Oaks being designated for parkland and then in the future development of the property to the south , that parkland would be extended . II I don' t know if I want you to do that. It seems to me Mr . Johnson has a choice of where he wants his piece of parkland to be but if it ' s supposed to connect up with development to the south, which is me, and I have a lot ( of prime buildable property, I guess I wouldn' t care to have that II designated as parkland if it doesn 't have to be. I understood there were some questions about the parkland and I don' t know how it works . If you have to donate land or pay fees or what, I have no idea on that. That' s II why I wanted a rep from the Park. Emmings: We don' t know either . I Jo Ann Hallgren : Has Mr . Johnson picked an area for the park? Emmings: Just a minute. I think the thing is that the functions of the II Park and Rec Commission and ours don' t overlap. Your comments probably should have been addressed to them but they' ll become a part of our Minutes and go onto the City Council . We don' t ordinarily get involved I with the things in their domain . Jo Ann Hallgren: But no one was notified . I was not notified that it was going to be designated parkland . Headla : Can I say something Steve? This is a public hearing and this is the first chance anybody has had to say anything on it. Isn' t that II appropriate? Emmings : Doesn ' t Park and Rec have a public hearing when an item like II this comes in front of them? Dacy: Technically no but let me explain a little more about this issue. The Park and Rec Commission identified this general area as being park II deficient and they identified a need for parkland . Typically the Park and II 1 . Planning Commission Meeting ' September 7, 1988 - Page 9 Rec Commission notifies the applicant about this . I know that the applicant had objected to the reservation of the one acre park area. The Park and Rec Commission ' s recommendation goes onto Council and the 1 applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Council . The Council can decide whether or not to accept the Park and Rec Commission' s recommendation. I guess in one instance it' s good to hear these comments now. Emmings: I want you to put your comments on record and anybody else who has and wants to because the City Council looks at what happens here and looks at your comments . Jo Ann Hallgren : As I understand , I don ' t go to many of these meetings but Park and Rec land, I don ' t know what they have in mind. How big a park? Usually 5 acres is supposed to be a park. I certainly don ' t want 5 acres taken, or 4 acres taken off my 11 acre piece and where else are they ' going to go? Stratford Ridge is to the east and there ' s 400 feet to get to the south of me. I don ' t understand where they think they' re going to go with their 5 acres . It would be that I would have no choice in the development of my property where I would like designated parkland or if I ' would rather pay fees , if that ' s the choice. I don' t know. The other thing is, Lake Little Joe, I don ' t know if you' re familiar with it but it ' s down the road a few blocks , there is a lot of low land there which I 'm sure is unbuildable because it ' s a water table. To me a park in that area would be much more feasible. You would have wildlife and area for a larger park than you would in this particular spot . ' Emmings: I think that when it comes to you developing your property, that issue will be negotiated anew between you and the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. I don' t think that anything that ' Park and Rec is doing , they may be making plans but it ' s not going to I think constrain your development in any way. Am I right Barbara? ' Jo Ann Hallgren : They said that additional parkland can be added when development occurs to the south. Emmings : I think that ' s wishful thinking . That ' s what they hope to do and whethey they do it or not , that' s a question for the future. Jo Ann Hallgren : But that ' s what you say. ' Erhart: I have a question for later on but it might be an appropriate time to ask it . What •i.s the legal requirement for the developer regarding ' supplying any land to the Parks and Rec? Dacy: I think it' s Chapter 17 or 18 of our City Code does enable the City to require a certain amount of land dedication for Park and Recreation purposes . In lieu of that , the City can also impose park and trail fees . Erhart: What is the amount of land as a percent of total land being developed or is it not measured like that? 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 10 Dacy: Most communities use a 10% figure and Chanhassen goes by the amount II of population that' s going to be generated from a service area of the subdivisions . As Lori noted in her report , how many folks could be anticipated to use that park and to use persons per lot and crank that into a formula to determine the number of acres . Erhart: What' s the ordinance specifically. . . Dacy: The ordinance is based on that . If you can give me a minute, I can find it. Erhart : No . The report' s a little scarey I think. First let me ask you II this. What do you suppose the average size, in terms of acres , of the typical subdivision that we ' ve seen here in the last 12 to 24 months? Dacy: Let' s answer your question this way. A 5 acre park for a neighborhood park is the standard but for this size subdivision , to require 5 acres out of this size subdivision is excessive. ' Erhart : Right , and Lori admits that . I don' t think the Park and Recreation Commissioners stated that. The one that I find a little awestruck by is the sentence, typically it is in the Park and Rec policy to request not less than 5 acres and I can insert the words , of a subdivision , for parkland . I look at this subdivision and I look at this II and I say this is very typical of subdivisions we' ve seen here since I ' ve been on the Planning Commission and they' re all generally around 10 acres . I think out there they' re all around 10 acres and to state that 5 acres is typical when the average subdivision is 10 acres somehow I question that . It just appears that we ' re, to keep kind of going back to the developers and asking for more, it gets to the point where it is a little intimidating for the developer . , Dacy: Don ' t misunderstand what she' s saying . She ' s saying 5 acres for this park deficient area which includes the western half of the west side of Minnewashta Parkway there. Erhart : Okay, maybe I am misinterpretting it . I read that. . . Dacy: She' s not saying , 5 acres out of this 10. That' s where Mrs . Hallgren is saying , I don' t want 4 acres being taken out of mine. Erhart: I see. I read that to say that typically we take a minimum of 5 II acres for any subdivis•ion . Okay, I take back everything I just said . Pete Warhol : Pete Warhol , 3831 Leslee Curve and I guess I 'm a little , opposed to the size of those lots . I don ' t think they conform to the area. My lot' s an acre and a fourth. I know my neighbor ' s lots are decent size. 1 L Emmings : Where do you live? Pete Warhol : 3831 Leslee Curve. I don ' t think that ' s going to help our properties that are decent sized. That ' s my comment. I Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 11 Tom Poppitz : I live at 4000 Glendale Drive and my main concern is the lowland behind my house with the amount of water that sits back there and getting rid of it after a normal winter with the spring thaw and with the rains that do come in the summer. I have a couple pictures I 'd like to pass around and have you people look at . The first one I will pass around is after the spring thaw, where the water sits and the second one is after a normal rain in the summertime. Headla : Why don' t you tell them the time you took that. ' Tom Poppitz : These were back in 1978 . ' Emmings : Are these taken in the area where we've been talking about having the holding pond? Tom Poppitz: Yes . The water closest would be where the holding pond would be. Before that and the back part would be where the two lots would be. Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . ICHeadla : I ' ve got a question of Mr . Johnson. Would you go over again about the sewer and how it affects the property to the south? Dave Johnson : I would have my engineer Ray Brandt . Ray Brandt: Right now my plans shows a lift station in this area that would take it up to Glendale Drive but after talking with Mr . Brown , the best way to do this is to put the lift station at this end of the property such that at some time in the future when the land to the south does develop, then the gravity sewer can, I would drain the whole project down to this point and then pump from here back up to here or maybe even over at Stratford Ridge but when development occurs to the south such that this roadway gets extended , at that point then the sanitary sewer with gravity flow out and the lift station would be abandoned or removed . Brown: Again , we' ll be looking at that further through the plans and specs review. If I may make a brief comment. The concept study that was done through the Stratford Ridge did not have the precise topography, if you will . It was looking at in a concept sort of manner. Again, the task ' put back to the developer is to support his conclusions with data through the plans and specs review proving to the City that this can not be served by gravity flow. If he does that , then we will accept the lift station concept . ' Headla : By that , we' re really saying that if the person to the south sells her property, damn well better put a road in there. So you ' re I predesigning something . You ' re taking many perogatives away from that land owner to the south . The land owner to the south , they may not want to go out that way so now, what happens? i Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 12 C Brown: I don' t see the problem. Headla : What are you going to do about the lift station? ' Brown: We have at the present time 23 lift stations within the City. It ' s not desirable to have another lift station added to the system. However , ' we can ' t deny that. Headla : So the Village assumes the cost of the lift station and the builder goes away Scott free. , Brown: In maintenance costs , yes . Much like we would a public street . Headla : What impact does that street ending there have on the future ' development of the property to the south? Dacy: If you recall during the Stratford Ridge subdivision, that ' s when we did take a broader look at the properties under separate ownership in this area . There' s no question that we have properties developing in these small chunks . We are predisposing the street pattern onto that adjacent property but we have looked at the overall picture at least in general kind of concepts and have provided a logical street extension to the property to the south. Headla : But if neither Stratford Ridge or this one follows the plan that was presented before. It seems like a builder comes in and makes his pitch and then that ' s the way it starts going . ' Dacy: Another consideration also is the topography of the site. Physical features in this particular case , there was the street connection up at Glendale that made good sense to connect that in. We wanted to make sure there were two ways to get into the subdivision as well as providing some type of access to the south. When the land to the south. . . Headla : If we' re going that way, why aren' t we consistent? On Stratford Ridge we put in a cul-de-sac. Now we deadend the street. That isn' t consistent . , Dacy: On the Stratford Ridge property there was along the southern boundary, there was an outlot reserved for further extension to the west . It was a cul-de-sac in the northeast corner . When we looked at that entrance onto Mi.nnewashta Parkway versus other entrances and we did reserve an outlot for future extension to the west . Headla: I 'm really opposed to having this coming right up to another person' s property. That ' s a really sad thing . At the builder ' s convenience, this is the way it ' s going to be period. Like it or not. To I me that ' s wrong . . . .that' s anarchy. I ' ve got a question on why the so small a lot. Why do you want to go 25% to 30% smaller on your lots than what ' s in the rest of the area? i II Planning Commission Meeting ISeptember 7, 1988 - Page 13 ' Dave Johnson : The rest of those lots were developed back at a time when land was cheap and so was development. The zoning for this area is 15, 000 square foot minimum size. We attempted to get as many lots as we could ' get taking topography into consideration and staying within the guidelines of your ordinance . ' Headla : But you had no concern for the neighborhood whatsoever . You wanted to go for the maximum buck. People invest a lot of money into their property. If you use the same size property, you still got good value in your property. ' Dave Johnson : I think before anybody considers that we' re coming in there and just going for the biggest bang for the buck without regard to the ' neighborhood , I think they should perhaps check out some of the projects that we've been involved in before. I heard the same sort of comments just across TH 7 on that project called Brentridge in the City of Shorewood and all the people along Howards Point Road, in this particular case they' re all sitting on lots that are approximately 20, 000 square feet and the area on that side of a large marsh, Boulder Bridge Farms is on the other side of Howards Point Road and you know, or maybe you don ' t but that' s $500,000. 00 and up neighborhood and it' s zoned for 40, 000 square foot lots . Now east of the marsh , on the other side of the marsh it ' s zoned for 20,000 square foot lots . Now meanwhile you' ve got a strip of existing houses in there that , all those neighbors raised a lot of cane lk: and complained that you' re going to hurt the value of our houses if you put in , in this case they changed the zoning to 20 , 000 and we put in an average of 26, 000 plus for a lot. But the neighbors were all up in arms ' yet now that the project is in there, the quality of the house, the sizes of the house and the layout, it' s going to be a nice addition to the community. Everybody' s scared when land that ' s been sitting there vacant ' and they' ve had the beautiful views of the raw land and potentially in some cases the use of it , that this developer is just going to come in and rack the area. That doesn ' t happen to be the case. We intend to put in a ' nice subdivision with nice houses . We' re conforming to the City' s requirements and then some. I guess I don ' t share the view that the difference of 3, 000 square foot per lot is a significant enough difference to say that it' s going to be a crummy development . Headla : It ' s more than 3, 000. You' re talking 15, 000 lots and the others are 22, 000 to over 40, 000. ' Dave Johnson : The figures I heard up here were , mine are . . . Headla: Let me ask some other questions will you please. The ' sedimentation pond , why is that so close to the neighbors? Why didn ' t you put it back in your own land? ' Dave Johnson : I ' ll defer that to my engineer . Headla:sturbed I see a common thread through this whole thing and I 'm really di about it. 1 ' I Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 14 ' Ray Brandt : You' ve got to put the ponding area in the low end of the project. You can't put it in the high end of the project. The low end of the project is right here. This is where the drainage goes . This whole property, except for possibly a little corner down here, drains today II right through to this low area, through this drainage swale. This ponding area can do nothing but improve the situation because all the storm water goes into the pond and has a chance to settle out which it doesn' t do now. There' s capacity here in this pond for almost 8 inches of rain in a 24 hour period . If we get more than that , maybe 10 inches of rain like we had last year in July, there's an overflow from the dike at 964. 5 which would go over the dike, down into the swale that' s there now. ' Headla: I disagree with your reasoning. Why you've put that off in a corner where it' s minimum disturbance to the rest of the land . You can move it up further and catch probably 75% to 80% of the water coming in off of there . Ray Brandt : Where should I move it to? ' Headla : Where that one right angle in the road is. The point is, you' re getting all this . . . ' Ray Brandt: You can' t put it uphill . You put it at the low end of the project. Headla : But you don' t have to put it at the bottom end either . You want to catch 100%, maybe . . . I see this , you' re totally coming in , you' re going to have water in that pond, a lot more than it is now. If they've got kids or pets going in there , it' s going to be another mess . You can ' t help but get away from that. Ray Brandt: There will be no water standing there except after a rain for II a day until it drains out. Headla : I don ' t think it' s going to be just a day. Another common thread II I see is the builder wants to be part of the Pleasant Acres. He wants access to the lake. Pleasant Acres concern to be placed but when it comes to providing park area for that whole Pleasant Acres , he doesn't want to II do that . He wants to back away and make them give up an acre of that. If you' re part of Pleasant Acres, you ' re part of the problem damnit, but why give park area . Somebody should provide it . Right now the way it ' s laid II out, just like that road, the people to the south are going to have to bury that and that ' s wrong . Pleasant Acres created the problem, I think that whole thing should be solved by Pleasant Acres . Another common II thread I see is when you had your meeting , the developer , when you talked to the neighbors , it was on a week night. Now the neighbors that I talked to , most of them were gone . If you called it on a weekend , you would have had a lot better attendance. Dave Johnson : I don ' t follow that logic at all . Headla : When did you have your meeting? 1 Planning Commission Meeting ISeptember 7, 1988 - Page 15 C Dave Johnson : We had it on a week night . Either Wednesday or Thursday. Headla: Right and people. . . I think some were concerned, they wanted to ' hear that . The drainage concern there , there shouldn ' t be any real effect on that should there? Dacy: The drainage? Headla: Yes . Dacy: Larry? Brown : Again , there' s concern from the homeowners regarding the potential ' flooding of it and we ' re working to make sure that that doesn' t happen. Headla : Then I have one last comment . This letter from the forester . I 'd like to have the forester come over to my house and take a look to the north and tell me he confirmed to see the land that ' s straight bare rather than a bunch of Box Elder on it. On his wording there, Box Elder is trash trees but when you look at that land now, there are trees on it . There is something green. Now if they want to take those trees down, okay, maybe that makes sense but I think they should replace the equivalent number of wood that they take down. I think they ought to replace the equivalent somewhere along with the development of that. That ' s all I have. ' 1 Batzli : I 'd like to say one thing about the y g th park issue. As I understand it , for a single family detached dwelling lots , you consider an average of ' 3 persons per lot and you need 1 acre for 76 people. That' s what the Park and Recreation Commission goes for so it appears here there ' s what , 27 lots. 1 acre does , in theory obtain what they recommend or it comes very ' close . Within the guidelines of what our ordinance says for that so I think more than 1 acre is outrageous and 1 acre is probably about right on. I was interested in those pictures that were passed around in that ' that appears to me to be where we' re going to put the drainage swale and the holding pond . You said earlier that you ' re going to put the swale so if there is overflow, if there is an event greater than the 100 year storm, it ' s going to overflow into the creek? That ' s what you ' re working on now with their engineer to come up with something like that? Brown : That ' s correct . ' Batzli. : It appears from those pictures that that ' s standing water and I 'm going to assume that it ' s there more than a day after the rains take place ' so when you construct a holding pond like this , you normally redo the bottom of it or something in order to have it drain properly? Right now the engineer indicated something you could do there for a short while. Is that the case or is this thing going to collect water and hold water? ' Brown: Most of our ponds within the City are constructed as what we call a dry pond, usually drain out within a day so there shouldn' t be standing 'r water if the pond is constructed correctly. I Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 16 ' Batzli : Did we not impose restrictions on grading within drainage pond areas that were located within areas that weren' t outlots in previous developments? I thought for some reason, I can ' t remember the name of it , that we did a big drainage swale and there were going to be Covenants imposed on the homeowners that they couldn ' t adjust that grading . Brown: That' s correct. That was in Stratford Ridge. Staff ' s concern II obviously, as you eluded to , is that a builder not come in and alter that sort of ponding configuration. Batzli : Or the private individual that moves in there if they don' t want II a swale in their backyard . Brown: Correct . ' Batzli : I 'd like to see something like that put into the recommendations here personally. I disagree with, somewhat, not with the City Attorney' s ' opinion necessarily but that by adding 15 more lots that are able to use a beachlot does not increase it' s use. I think it' s ludicrous to say that . That ' s just a comment that I ' ll make and I don ' t think we can really address it but I think that' s a silly thing to say and I can' t imagine why II we can ' t address that . If we' re told we can' t address it . . . A question for Larry. Do we not need easements if a lift station is necessary? Brown: The lift station , and I ' ll simply check here. . . 1 Batzli : I was referring in particular to the staff report condition 7. The applicant will provide the City with easements to service this parcel II by gravity sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is necessary. That seems to me to say that we don ' t need any easements if a lift station is necessary. ' Brown : Okay, maybe my condition was unclear . Going back to this concept plan that was done a while ago showed sanitary sewer running down the II proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 in Block 3. Excuse me, that ' s Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Block 3. That common lot line. Obviously, I talked with Mr . Poppitz, one of the adjacent lot owners there. There is a potential that sanitary sewer might run down that lot line that I mentioned and through the Pleasant Acre lots there to Glendale Avenue if sufficient easements exist . Obviously the City can not go back through the Pleasant Acres subdivision and require more easements unless we condemn and we certainly don ' t want to do that at this point so we'd rather have the applicant provide an additional easement through possibly Lot 2 or 3 to accomodate the existing easement within the Pleasant Acres if this becomes necessary. Again, the I task is back to the developer to provide us with that data . Batzli : I thought he was indicating that he may put in a temporary lift station and then go to the gravity. ' Brown: It has the potential to be resolved later . Batzli : So the condition may change at the City Council depending upon what you two decide? I I . Planning Commission Meeting ' September 7 , 1988 - Page 17 C Brown: That ' s correct. The easement again that I 'd be looking for would be along Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3. ' Batzli : Barb, I want to ask the question that I think Dave asked and I don' t think you quite answered it. Why isn' t there a cul-de-sac at the ' end of that road that gets to the eastern border? What is that? South? Brown: Southwestern. Batzli : Even if it' s a temporary cul-de-sac. Whatever . Dacy: The City has the perogative to require a temporary turn around at ' that point. That ' s fine . Larry, I don ' t know if you wanted to address that. ' Brown : The basis for the cul-de-sacs , giving it a long deadend road is basically for fire protection vehicles so they don' t have to back all the way out. Given like our aerial truck or a hook and ladder or whatever . Public Safety, we confronted Public Safety regarding this and Jim Chaffee , ' the Public Safety Director stated that it was not required in this . He felt that the length which I will bring to the Commission' s attention, I mentioned was 1, 000 feet . My error , it is only 500 feet . He stated that it was not required in that instance. Batzli : That ' s interesting , but that ' s his decision . I guess I 'd prefer to see. . . Last two comments, one is , I would prefer to see the developer ' rearrange Lots 1, 2 and 3 with 3 and 4. Whichever the ones are that don' t have the required frontage rather than going for a variance. I don' t think the lots in this case deserve a variance . I think he ' s packing them ' in there and he can rearrange them a little bit to get the required footage. It ' s his hardship to developing around this corner . I also would like to ask the question that we talked about before regarding ' blending neighborhoods . I think we talked about amending the ordinance to blend. Any comments? Conrad : This is a fun one, because that ' s a concern of mine . In this ' particular case we' re not that far different than, I 'm sure the residents don ' t care to hear that but at least we' re within 25% . I get real upset when new developments are coming in at 15, 000, all at 15, 000 square feet and they' re in areas where the other houses that are there are over an acre. There we' re talking about 300%-400%. This is really quite minor compared to what we' ve seen over the past several years . ' Headla : . . .when you consider all the Pleasant Acres or/and Stratford Ridge. ' Conrad : Bottom line is , the ordinance says 15, 000 Dave and we' ve gone through that and what the ordinance says is what the developer has to meet and we don ' t have any control over that unless we change the ordinance . Flat out. Period. End of sentence. End of whatever . The developer only has to meet the minimum and when we chanced ordinances a couple years ago, we didn' t have too many people in this chamber saying we need bigger lot . 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 18 ' sizes . We had very few people show up for those meetings . We had a section in there where we proposed a 40, 000 square foot zoning district . We proposed that . Nobody showed up for that meeting . Nobody showed . Therefore, the City had the chance and right now the developer has the II option to come in at 15 , 000 . This developer is coming in more than that . It ' s less than the neighborhood but it' s sure far closer than most of the developments we' ve seen. Batzli : I agree that the ordinance says 15 ,000 but I would like to proceed post haste with taking a look at that blending . Conrad : Can you do that in the next couple of days Barbara? Dacy: Sure. , Conrad : I agree with that Brian . This is a real problem area because I think we want new developments to blend in. We just really do and there are definite economics that are imposed on developers right now versus developers 10 years ago or 20 years ago and that can be incorporated into our ordinance and our thinking . Lot sizes may never be as big as they used to be but that doesn' t mean that we can' t try to match neighborhoods II and new developments into the old neighborhoods . We just haven ' t gotten there yet. We don' t have an ordinance that we can move back on to say this is not in concert with the existing development. Our ordinance doesn' t do that. Emmings : I just noticed one thing here . On recommendation 1, it says Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 and that should say Block 3 I take it. Dacy: That ' s correct . Conrad : I agree with a lot of the comments . Larry, just a quick question I that this issue brings up. When we put a pond in on a piece of property, you kind of want that to take care of the drainage obviously but you kind of want it to be an asset at the same time, if you can. A lot of developments and the neighborhoods can be upset if you put a pond in or don' t put a pond in. Different people have different perspectives . A lot of the ponding that we put up, that capture drainage from subdivisions , can be permanent ponds . Attractive and whatever. In this particular case it' s meant to be a dry pond . Do we do anything to make it attractive? Does that mean that the land stays as it is and it is our posture that that is good because it can be good? Or do we try to make things pretty with that pond? What '•s our posture in the City? Brown: I think you laid it out well . There ' s two possibilities . Either II you construct the dry pond which is going to add probably the, I call it the meadow grass . That ' s probably not a very good term but it ' s the meadow grass that ' s out there now along the edge of the pond. Obviously the edge of that vegetation is going to depend on how many successive rains you get. The water will potentially stand in that for a day and then maybe drain off . If we have 14 continuous days , we slowly start to deteriorate the vegetation but if it' s a dry pond, usually the banks and the area that ' s not directly affected will be a meadow grass . If on the 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 19 other hand you decide that you want to enhance the wildlife aspect , create a wet pond and then you create another concern, at least from my past experience with neighborhoods, of safety versus small children in your pond. To create a cattail situation which would enhance a lot of wildlife and you ' re looking at a minimum of about 3 feet of water which residents often times don' t like because of the safety problems . Conrad : I think it comes down to some preferences and priorities of developers and neighborhoods . I have my preference on what I would want and I think there ' s not always total agreement on what I believe would be ' best to improve the value of the neighborhood. I think I ' ll just leave that alone. I wanted to raise the issue. Dave, you were concerned that they' re putting the ponding close to neighbors . On the other hand, that can be an asset too . I think you can cut this thing a couple different ways . It all depends on your perspective. Barbara , for you basically, if the folks to the south , two questions . One, why are we looking at a plat ' without a park on it? Dacy: Maybe the applicant may want to comment on that also . We talked about that. That was the recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission. ' There were other issues regarding preliminary plat that had to be discussed. Final decision would be up to the Council as to whether or not they would go along with the Park and Rec Commission ' s action . 11( Conrad: So the applicant said that I prefer not to have a park? Not to show where it would be? ' Dave Johnson : I received a letter from Lori Sietsema with her recommendations on it basically as it related to a park. It said that they prefer to get a 5 acre park. They didn ' t feel they could take 5 acres from this project. That would be considered a taking, I believe is the word she used . She said in light of that , it was her recommendation that they look for parkland closer to Lake Joe and that they require a ' cash park dedication fee from me in lieu of taking any land . Then she went on to state that they wanted, because there was a through street in there, they wanted a trail put along the side of the through street . When I discussed what that entailed, I said well that sounds fine with me if ' that ' s your recommendation . I had a prior commitment and I didn ' t go to the Park and Rec meeting because I felt they would probably listen to what the staff suggested and what the staff suggested was fine with me . After the Park and Rec meeting, I was contacted and told that they wanted two lots . It doesn ' t show the trail system on the one that you have. We haven ' t put it in. I don ' t have a problem with that and I prefer the cash donation rather than the land . I 'm not particularly in favor of a 1 acre ' park. I don ' t think it does much for the project and Mrs . Haligren may or may not develop her land in the near future and it may or may not work out so that you' re able to get more land there with 11 acres . I doubt you could get much more than an acre there and I 'm not so sure that a 2 acre park is , if there is more land not very far away where a 5 acre one could be gotten, I think that would make more sense. I don' t know. I intend to have a Park and Rec meeting this Tuesday which I will attend . It ' s going to be discussed here. I II Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 20 C II Conrad : I 'm kind of lost a little bit . So what did Park and Rec say? II They want an acre maybe here but maybe they want a different park some other place? That ' s what I just heard . What are they looking for and it' s not even our business except as to how it affects this plat and I II don ' t like to see a plat that doesn ' t have a park that somebody says you should have and send it to City Council . I 'm kind of lost. Dacy: If the Council comes back and agrees with the Park and Rec I Commission action to locate a park in the plat , the applicant will be required to submit a revised plat. We felt uncomfortable delaying the applicant' s hearing in front of the Planning Commission based on a couple II of options that the Park and Rec Commission, obviously we' re looking at a variety of options on this piece of property, and make a recommendation to Council . So we have three different bodies maybe saying three different things . II Conrad : On the Park and Rec target map , where they want to put parks , do we have a little bullseye over this parcel? Have you seen that map? I Dacy: They don' t have a specific plan . They' re reacting to this area in general as being park deficient. 1 Headla : Ladd , where you' re just looking at the . . . , the park being expanded to the south. That paragraph before it, that kind of preempts II it . Conrad : In terms of running a road into an adjacent property, that is good planning Dave. The first group comes in, you can' t just say don' t I put any roads anyplace because we never know when the next property develops . We just don't know. The best planners can do is say hey, we' re going to take a wild stab at it and we could force cul-de-sacs too . II Headla : Cul-de-sacs would be much more tolerable. Conrad : Then you' ve got access problems . Then you' ve safety problems . I I bring this up not that we haven' t gone through this before but I think you should hear some of the things we talk about . You put a cul-de-sac in there, which specifically the lady with the property to the south, we I put a cul-de-sac in, we have additional safety problems . Typically you try not to have cul-de-sacs but the neighbors say we like cul-de-sacs because it gives a sense of community. So there ' s a lot of things that II go into some of this stuff but back to something kind of real . By having a road that abuts up to a neighboring property, does that absolutely mean we' re going to connect to it or does that mean that in the future, the next landowner may say, hey I don' t want to connect? For the lady that II has that property, what are we saying to them? Dacy: Absolutely, 100o , of course we can ' t guarantee that but it provides for a logical extension. When we look at the half section, this cis the Stratford Ridge property and we reserved an easement all along there and the road comes in like this . It would be natural to make that II some kind of connection back up to Minnewashta Parkway. Maybe a cul-de-sac back in here and on down. I think your previous comment was II Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 21 C right . We' re doing the best that we can knowing the factors that we know now and we had a previous guide with the overall by BRW when we were trying our best to reserve all possible options . ' Conrad : I do agree with the staff report and the staff report talks about , and basically I don ' t agree with any variances . I think the developer should live with the Chanhassen ordinances as they are and we don ' t create subdivisions and have a variety of variances created by that subdivision. You' ve got a big block of property that can be divided a lot of different ways and I don ' t think we allow variances . At least I ' don' t feel comfortable with that. The balance of the staff report looks pretty good to me. Emmings : I was just going to follow up on his comment. His last comment. Just like the developer is allowed to develop lots as small as 15, 000, he gets the benefit of that . He gets a burden here, it seems to me, of having to develop that corner in compliance with our ordinance too . We don' t just give him a variance because it doesn ' t fit his plan . He doesn' t get a variance to the things that don' t fit his plan when he' s using the ordinance to develop rather small lots . I think particularly in this case we don' t grant variances . Ellson : I agree , I don ' t like granting a variance so I wouldn ' t go along Ili: with a variance for any of the setbacks less than 90 feet. I don ' t think, I 'm probably more along the lines of Ladd . I don ' t really think there ' s a disadvantage to having a holding pond. I don ' t see that as a negative. I see that as an undeveloped land and these people wanted as much undeveloped as they could have and this is more or less designating that as never being developed . If they didn' t want to have it developed , if they had water standing -10 years ago in the back there now, I don' t ' see that it ' s going to look a whole lot different only now it ' s going to be designated. If you can clear off the run-off of the 100 year storm or whatever , I think it' s actually an improvement . I don ' t like the idea of ' temporary things like the lift station. I know that we can' t like not do it or whatever but if there was a way around something like that, I 'd like to see it. I think once you say temporary, I 'd like to have an ending date . As of when will it stop being temporary versus an ongoing thing. I prefer to stay away from anything that' s temporary. I like the designation of a park and from Brian ' s reasoning , it makes sense that 1 acre should be sufficient. I think it' s nice to have a neighborhood ' where you can walk to a park and at least have some swings or a slide or something for young children and that and I also think that a bike trail is nice for anyone within Chanhassen . Especially a new development that you can bike around it. It ' s a nice addition to any development so I 'd ' like to see both the park and the 1 acre park. I agree 5 acres is a bit much but I really would advise the Homeowners Association to check into your legal options as your deed goes . You may certainly have quite a lot t of ground to stand on that maybe you haven' t explored and I would really recommend that they do that as far as the beachlot . I probably would go along with it. Again, I 'm not thrilled with the size of the lots either IC but we can ' t change the law just because we don ' t like it . We' ve already agreed that this is going to be the law and I can' t then say, but I don' t agree with it for you and I do agree with it for you so I think as long I ' Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 22 as he ' s meeting that ordinance, whether I like it necessarily or not , I can ' t really choose that. I would really be able to do much about the size of that law. I think he' s meeting our requirements and that ' s all he can do. That' s all we can hold him to. Erhart : Let me ask you something here Barb. The Planning Commission is a required body by the State? Dacy: Yes . Erhart : Is the Park and Rec? ' Dacy: By State Statute? I can't say for sure. . . Erhart : I guess I heard a couple statements here tonight that I disagree I with and that is that parks are not our business . I 've heard that as we go along here over the years . I think, I might be wrong , I ' ve been wrong once before. In fact once already tonight, but I think parks are our business . I venture to say that Parks and Recs are not a required body and I might come and state that I 'm all for Parks and Recs and I encourage their work. They' re needed and everything but I think it is our work to review Park and Rec recommendations . It is a land planning subject . There ' s a purpose that they meet prior to us . I think the purpose is so we can review their recommendations and see how it fits into the broader view of land planning . I guess maybe we should take it up afterwards in a discussion but I think we all ought to make a decision whether it' s our job or find out whether it' s our job because I think it is . I think I 'd like to have us deal with that issue when we go along . Emmings : Let me interrupt you. Barb, can you comment on that? How do the Planning Commission and Park and Rec relate to one another? Are they parallel bodies both making recommendations to the City Council? Dacy: That' s the way the flow chart works . Emmings : So are we supposed to review park issues? Are we supposed to review their recommendations because they meet before us? Can we if we want to? ' Dacy: That has not been the policy in the past . Tim' s right from the standpoint that it is a land planning issue and the Commission in the past actions have made comments one way or the other on parks and trails or whatever. Just in general things . We have not specifically made a point of each item to review the appropriateness of Park and Rec ' s recommendation because they report directly to the Council . Maybe what we could do in the future is maybe get the Chairman from each body together to talk about that issue. Emmings : You can see on the one hand that it is a planning issue and it seems appropriate for us to address it and I don't see why we should say we can ' t but on the other hand , if they' re meeting and looking at the II whole thing , there ' s no sense in duplicating effort either and winding up with contrary proposals . I Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 23 ' Erhart : I 'm not suggesting that . I suggest that we should certainly use their input but using the precedence that we have commented, I ' ll comment . I think the issue regarding the confusion of this 1 acre versus fee and so forth. It seems to me it makes more sense to have the Park and Rec Commission, if there are deficient areas , and I know there are a ' lot of deficient areas, somehow they should take and look at the city and find those areas and put them in the land plan some 5 acre parcels . I don ' t think you can take in the middle of the process where you take a 5 or 10 acre subdivisions and somehow expect to come out ever with some 5 ' acre parks. I think it makes good sense, if you ' re going to have a park, you make it 5 acres . That sounds very logical . If you ' re going to have swings and baseball , softball fields but it seemed to me rather than ' trying to sort of take a half hearted account from this developer and say well we'd like 5 acre so then back off. We kind of look foolish. Let' s make the plan for 5 acre parks and let ' s get them on the Comp Plan so people are notified years in advance that we think we' re going to look ' for a park. Anyway, that ' s enough said on that . I think we should do the trails. I think it' s too bad we don ' t have a 5 acre plan here. It ' s too late to try to fit in 1 acre here and 4 acres from the lady to the ' south. It think it' s too late. Let' s get the fees and trails in there now so that ' s my comment . I 'm against , very much against the variance coinciding with the comments that have been made. You haven ' t got a I chance of getting the variance and you ought to go back and change your plan. I do have, as we watched this go along here though , empathy for the situation where we do have sharp curves and we attempt to put lots on them and we require the 90 foot frontage at the street line. I would be ' interested in getting involved in looking at the ordinance to allow on curves , that on the outside portion of the curve, that we use another way to measure. One would be the setback line. A couple things so you end ' up building here, otherwise you' re always going to have a couple lots on a curve that are going to be 50o bigger than the other lots . What it does is it ends up skewing your data so when you look at this subdivision , it says 17 , 000 square foot average lot but 90% of the lots ' are 15, 000 square feet. It' s because you ' ve got curve lots that are larger . I think if you would give , just in the same way we change the ordinance to reduce the minimum lot depth to 125 feet to give the ' developer more flexibility in doing a design, I think reviewing the ordinance as far as curve lots and frontage, if we have the energy and want to do that , I think it ' s a good idea . Batzli : Wouldn ' t that impact just putting in more small lots? Where there ' s a couple big lots . . . ' Erhart : No , it would have no affect on the overall lot size . It would only have affect on how much frontage is required. Batzli : Then you could make the outside radius lot smaller . Erhart: You could make them smaller . Batzli : That doesn ' t mean you ' re going to make that always bigger . Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 24 C Erhart: That' s not my purpose. ' Batzli : What' s the purpose? Erhart : The purpose of it is to give the developer more flexibility in designing a better plan. Conrad : I think the logic would be, do we like curves in our streets or do we like the grid of streets? Intersecting and whatever? Why penalize a developer for putting in some curves and I 'm not specifically talking about this plan at all . Should we encourage sharp curves? ' Erhart : Being that nobody' s interested in it , that ' s fine. The ponding, I 've got a question on it. My preference is to encourage permanent in ponds. I 'd like to ask the engineer why, or the developer , why make the decision to go basically with a temporary holding pond as opposed to a permanent pond? Ray Brandt: I believe, unless you can have a larger pond , this really isn' t that big of a pond to have water standing in it. If it was . . . it might be better for the wildlife . I don' t have a 2 acre pond . I have a 1. 6 acre per foot capacity. I have a large capacity. . . , somewhat large capacity but it ' s not 1. 6 acres of water . A half acre of water is 3 feet deep. Something like that. Erhart: How big are those , as defined in the map here , how big are those ponds in surface area? Ray Brandt : I don ' t know. I 'm guessing they' re half maybe 6/l0th ' s of an acre. Maybe 7/l0th' s of an acre of water at the top. Erhart : Both ponds combined or is that one pond? ' Ray Brandt: It' s all one pond . Erhart : And your feeling is that in a half an acre pond, as the pond gets smaller , the less likelihood that it ' s going to retain water on a permanent basis? ' Ray Brandt: No, you can make it retain water but I don ' t know, if you had a couple acres of wetland, I would think that would be better than having say a half acre of wetland . A long narrow half acre of wetland . Erhart: I don 't know. It' s probably down to, again you say who ' s opinion it is , but if I guess if I was looking for a lot and had an opportunity to buy one and not having kids , again, I think you ' ve got a lot of choices . The comments about neighbors on kids , if people have kids they don' t have to buy the lot on a pond because there aren' t I that many lots with ponds . As a person who would buy a lot , I don ' t find having a permanent ponded lot, it 'd be worth some money to me because C, I like ducks and frogs I guess . Anyway, my preference is to have permanent water if possible. 1 , Planning Commission Meeting ' September 7 , 1988 - Page 25 ' Ray Brandt : I see this pond as one that will end up being . . . It is a benefit . . . ' Erhart : Well , you could make it that way. Ray Brandt. You could, yes you could . Erhart : If the objective was to have a pond , that ' s what you ' re trying to figure out. ' Emmings : Larry, did you have a comment on this? Brown: Just a point of clarification. I 'm not sure if the dated plans that was sent out to the Commission versus the most recent . My concern in addressing the ponding issue was to go back to the engineer and say, let ' s create one larger pond versus three tiny ponds which have more potential to fail so the engineer has revised that on my set and ' I apologize that the revision on the pond , if yours shows three . Erhart: Yes , mine shows smaller ones . The cul-de-sac thing is kind of ' another issue . I guess I 'd leave that to the judgment of staff and engineering and other. The problem is, if you run it right up to the end and you don ' t ever use it, then you ' ve created a permanent problem. On I the other hand, if you got a 90% chance that someone is goign to use it as an extension to put a cul-de-sac in, then you ' ve got 4 houses that end up building at an angle to the street. How do you get rid of it? You can ' t so I guess it comes down to a judgment thing . If you think there ' s ' a 90% chance it' s going to be extended, I guess I 'd favor running to the end so the houses end up being along the street parallel . The lot sizes thing, the last issue to comment on, again, as you know I 'm somewhat of ' a proponent of smaller lot sizes . On the other hand , the citizens I think over the last year in many of these subdivisions have expressed their desire for us to create a solution where we take into consideration existing homeowners in Chanhassen. I do think it ' s time we do address this . I don' t think it will be that difficult if we just sit down , and I 'd volunteer to spend some time outside of the Planning Commission meeting and I know Bill on the Council has commented to try and come up with the formula approach to solving the problem of blending. I think the citizens have been in here over and over again asking us to do it and I think we ought to do it. That ' s my last comment . ' Headla : I 'd like to talk about that pond some more . Where ' s the drainage of that pond?. Where do you drain the water out of the sedimentation pond? ' Ray Brandt : To the swale in the back. ' Headla : Where is the pipe located from the bottom of the pond? Is it at 4 , 10 feet? ( Ray Brandt : It ' s at the bottom of the pond . 1 ' II Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 26 Headla : Now that' s got a real high water level . That whole land . We ' re II going to be draining that thing continuously. However , if you raise the level of that pipe , maybe you would have a very attractive pond in that area. Still have enough in reserve so when you have that heavy rain, it won' t go . . .overflow. I think there' s a good possibility because that place is wet. It' s been wet as long as I can remember . For many, many years. You don ' t ride your horse over that. It ' s just too wet. If I there were some way we could work that with the neighbors and them, maybe it could be turned into a real asset . Emmings: The woman sitting underneath the TV raised her hand at one point. Did you have a comment that you wanted to make? Mae Vanderbruggen , 4010 Glendale Drive: The pond, it is wet, as Dave I knows . All of us and you said that , the gentleman to the left , I 'm sorry I don' t remember your name. Emmings : The guy who likes the frogs? Mae Vanderbruggen: Yes. How would we keep this? I like wildlife myself and I love the ducks on our yards, the deer in the back and all that but I can understand we can not keep it from developing. How can we keep this pond , or get this pond and with x number of neighbors in this new development, how will the deer and the ducks and all of this beautification come to this particular pond? ' Erhart: How would you guarantee that a duck ' s going to nest there? I don ' t know that you can . Mae Vanderbruggen : I say it because we' ve lived there a long time and we do have ducks that nest there. This year we had the ducks but they left early. Erhart : I know what I 'd do. I have a pond like this , in fact it' s in my yard and I go down to the Robbinsdale Farm Store and I buy 8 ducklings every year that are wild . They stay there all year . I feed them. They' re beautiful . They quack in the late summer and in the fall they leave. It ' s very convenient . If the pond wasn ' t there, I wouldn ' t be able to do that. Mae Vanderbruggen : The grade will be definitely a problem. Like I say, I just so we at Pleasant Acres in the end, if this lift pump doesn' t handle the situation as it should or when , are we going to get storm sewer in there? Because when it rains , it gushes down into that, this way, down to the south . Right down to Lake Virginia you see . That ' s the drainageway plus the road into Lake Virginia and it does , we do have a nice roaring creek. Emmings : I ' ve got a few comments here myself. Having a 1 acre park in j this area seems to me to be a nice idea . I 'd like to see a park i.n there . I think there are going to be families with children in here that can use a park like that. It' s not big enough maybe to do some things but it' s big enough certainly to have a nice play area and maybe some 1 Planning Commission Meeting rSeptember 7 , 1988 - Page 27 r playground equipment and stuff like that and I think that ' s a nice amenity in any neighborhood. As far as the pond goes , I think the location is right and I think the location is right because I think it does the least violence to what presently exists . The water , according to the pictures we were shown, collects there now. It may be they' re containing the area that it flows to a little bit and that ' s fine with r me . Whether or not there' s a pond , whether it' s a dry pond or a wet pond , it seems to me on the one hand, the important thing is from an engineering point of view, is that the water gets handled and whether that' s best handled by a wet pond or a dry pond, I surely don' t know but r I trust that our City Engineer will know by the time this thing gets approved and it will have some good method of handling water . From the standpoint of whether there' s a wet or a dry pond , as to whether it ' s a ' nice amenity, it seems to me that' s strictly in the hands of the developer . If he thinks it will raise the value of the property he ' s going to sell , to have a permanent pond there, then that ' s what he ' ll do . If he doesn ' t think it will raise the value or if he doesn ' t care , then r he won' t. It seems to me it' s appropriate that he gets to make that decision so I don ' t care what he does . I care that the water gets into the holding pond. I agree that there shouldn' t be any variance and that r he should have to adjust his lots to meet the ordinance. On the road that deadends to the south there, it seems to me that somehow there ought to be a turn around there and I 'm really kind of surprised that our r Public Safety Director doesn' t want the turn around there for emergency vehicles or that our people who plow the roads don' t want it as a turn around for snowplows . I don' t understand that but I guess they' ve spoken and if they don ' t want to do it , fine . The rest of it , the size of the r lots doesn' t bother me that much. When I look at how the lots line up, it doesn ' t bother me too much . I don ' t think we ' re that far off . I do have to take a little bit of issue with some of the comments and frankly I ' ve got to tell you I 'm surprised to hear myself say this but this guy owns a piece of property and he has a right to develop that property and as long as he ' s meeting our ordinance, it' s inappropriate for us , I r think, to sit up here and say you can' t develop your land pretty much the way he wants to as long as he meets the ordinance that we' ve got and he ' s done that. I know that neighbors get used to looking at empty land and they prefer to see it that way and prefer to see deer walking through r there and everything else. That guy owns a piece of land, your land that you ' re on before you had houses on there and probably there were some neighbors that came in and didn' t want to see all your houses going in r there at that time. This is a thing we face over and over again here but basically he' s put together a project that fits . Having that road going to the south toward the Haligren property there , again and again Dave , on that issue in particular, when we' ve had neighboring parcels developing at or close to the same time, we' ve tried to preserve options so they can come in. I think that' s been planned in here and I think if that hadn' t been the rule, we would have said how are you going to connect this one ' to the south because that ' s what we' ve done on every other one again and again and we' ve been real consistent about that . I think in fact we ' ve gone out of our way to find ways to hook them together . I spoke my piece . r r Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 28 Erhart : Larry, do we take the position on these drainage ponds , whether I we want them wet or dry or is that totally up to the discretion of the developer? Brown: There ' s a couple of things that I haven ' t mentioned yet that may come into play. Bear with me if you will. I ' ll try to make this as brief as possible . A short scenario . Think of these ponds as a bowl . If you put 5 feet of water in that bowl , that reduces the capacity of that pond to store water . That 5 feet is no longer there to store additional water. Erhart : Unless you make it 5 feet deeper . Brown: Unless you make it 5 feet deeper or what more often happens is 5 feet higher because you run into ground water in this area, which we suspect because of the poor soil conditions. The developer will dig down, run into the water plus the fact that he has to match into the elevation of the existing creek so he can get enough slope to have it flow properly to this channel . You can ' t go below the creek or the creek will flow back into the pond. Create a back flow situation so in asking the developer to create a wet pond where he wants a dry pond , I 'm afraid what he'd end up doing is having to create a berm up to get the required ponding storage. Right now to address engineering ' s concern regarding the storage, he' s provided more than the storage for the 100 year event and I guess in that aspect I 'm satisfied . Erhart: But if somebody comes in and wants a wet pond, you don' t try to discourage them do you? I Brown: Not as long as they' re providing the adequate storage, no . Emmings: I ' ve got one more comment and that is on the beachlot thing . 1 I 'm familiar with this beachlot . I live on Lake Minnewashta and there is no way that you' re going to convince me that this isn' t an extension of the use, enlarging the use of that property. Not only that but I think it' s a real awkward situation because I can see the people who are used to using it and used to using it together , there' s going to be some resentment with 27 new families coming in who are eager to have access to the lake and a group of people who are used to using it together having a whole bunch of new people coming in to use it. I too would encourage you to find out exactly what your rights are for that . What documents there are that establish it . Batzli : That raises the issue of if it is actually an enlargement of the use, what are the City' s remedies to limit the use? Anything? I think that was the City Attorney' s point , is that do we go in and take a physical counting of people? Emmings : I think what the City Attorney is saying is that the thing that II created this took in a certain amount of land. It didn' t take in a �_. certain number of people and however that land may be developed , intensively or not intensively, but however it' s developed , whoever ' s on that land has a right to use that access . We can limit the boats and I 1 Planning Commission Meeting r September 7, 1988 - Page 29 docks and permits but we can ' t limit the number of people. I think that' s what he' s saying. I think that' s probably right but if it feels wrong . ' Batzli : Because it is enlarging the use technically. Maybe not legally. Emmings : If there' s not anything else on this , do you want to make a motion? Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' Subdivision #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22, 1988" subject to the following conditions . Conditions 1 through 9 as provided by the staff with the change in condition 1. It reads , is there a change in the numbering? Emmings : Block 3. Batzli : Okay. And I propose a condition 10 reading , subject to City approval of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding site contours and I think also it should be noted that, is the plat that you have Larry stamped a different date that shows the pond? ' Brown: No, my revision was for the grading plan. Conrad : I ' ll second the motion. Batzli moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1. Lots 1 through 5, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 3 be adjusted to provide ' 90 feet of width at the street frontage. 2. The applicant will work with the Park and Recreation Coordinator to provide one acre of park land along the southerly boundary of the property. 3 . The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each lot and ' along the location of the street prior to final plat approval . 4. The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire hydrants located not further than 300 feet apart. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper ' installation of these improvements . If- 6. The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary sewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire parcel cannot be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer . I r Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 30 7. The applicant will provide the City with the necessary utility ' easements across this parcel to service this parcel by gravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is necessary. 1 8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. The applicant' s engineer shall provide the City with the necessary documentation to verify that the 100 year storm event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed ponding site will not affect the II adjacent properties . 10. Subject to City approval of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding site contours . All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried . 1 Emmings: Do you want to briefly set out your concerns? I think we know II what they are. Headla : What do you mean , briefly? Emmings: Just give us a list of what your objections are. Headla : The lot sizes are not consistent with the area to the southeast . II The road going to the south should be a cul-de-sac or an easement eventually going through in case the road does go. . . . I think there should be a barrier so people don' t drive onto the property to the south . II I disagree , I don' t think there should be any acre of parkland . I think Mr. Johnson is correct there. It' s just too small for that area. If you have bigger lot sizes , then you wouldn ' t need any parkland either . PUBLIC HEARING: MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY. 7 AND CHURCH II ROAD, GARY CARLSON: A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE. FAMILY. B. REZONING FROM RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-8 , MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Public Present : Name Address Gary Carlson Applicant 1 Harry Carlson 6241 Church Road 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' September 7, 1988 - Page 31 ' Merlyn Wanous 6231 Church Road Terry and Dawn Toll 3851 Church Road ' Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Gary Carlson: As you can see I 'm quite anxious . I 've been before you and sat in on your meetings and I wish to thank you on behalf of the City and on behalf of being involved as a resident for your time and for your great considerations of all these proposals that come before you and I feel that you do a very, very good job. I 've got some gentlemen who are my associates who are quite qualified and they will be explaining the proposal a little bit better than I 'm able to do but I do have a few little pet things that I have put into this project that I 've gotten from ' comments from the Planning Commission. By listening to exactly what you ' ve said , has given me a couple things, more than a couple things in there that I just want to point out because I 'm proud of them and I want ' you to know that your input into the City is being heard . Just to introduce myself a little bit, I live just outside on West 62nd in the Cathcart home. It was built in 1886 and have lived out here for 20 years. My grandfather homesteaded a half mile from my present home and my father was born out in that home so I 'm the third generation and this project is to benefit the fourth generation. I have a handicap daughter and I don ' t know if it' s covered too much in your project , it is ' mentioned in my letter to you that two of the units and possibly three will be handicap units . Some of the proposals that you' ve considered in other apartments in other areas of the City, they say they' re handicap ' accessible . Well , a person in a wheelchair and a van is up against a curb stop. . . In my buildings , they drive, if you looked at the plan that ' s in here you ' ll see that they drive directly into their home, the ' wheelchair exits the van and they can drive straight into their living floor and have a two bedroom apartment . The plans are being checked by Courage Center and these will be provided in this development. That ' s kind of a pet project so it will give my daughter a lifetime income plus ' housing that' s really needed in this area of the City. The thing that' s in here for Dave, as you can see , these are native maple trees . Headla: You like trees . I ' ve seen your place and you have a lot of nice trees . Gary Carlson : And those are in there for Dave . Here ' s for Tim now. ' This pond here. In the house plans , these units which are affordable housing with no city subsidy, they' re affordable housing , this plan that' s in your book there shows , I know you had some subsidized housing in front of you and you ' re trying to get them to make them more sound proof. They didn' t seem to be able to find the dollars although the City was subsidizing . The only noise cover between the units would be between I�. the floors. I think you can see the ceiling joist and the floor joist are separated by 5 1/2 inch air space . I ' ve had them include in here , it lists here, I also have sound insulation so there would be no attachment. r Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 32 The units do not attach of course on the walls and on the floors , there' s the joist system and the ceiling joists that are from two separate systems . So they should be really nice units and as for Mr . Ladd Conrad , I have a very competent staff to sell you this project. I have Brad Sworem. . . from the engineering firm of Engelhardt and Associates I have a senior design engineer who' s basically done my original layout and has worked on this layout so I ' ll be here to answer any of your questions . I do want to thank all the neighbors. I guess I thought Terry, the Toll ' s have left but I wanted to point out , in the letters here, the residence that lies west of me, he owns everything buildable west of me has got a letter in support . Terry Toll and his wife are here. They also live , west of the development. They' re the next neighbors to the west . There ' s a letter of support from a neighbor to the east that owns the corner , the other corner of TH 7 and Church Road. The other neighbors aren' t here . They haven' t written a letter but I know they may have comments. I want to thank the neighbors for their support and their understanding in looking at the project and I 'm not just a developer that , hey, listen let ' s make some lots so I can sell them. I 'm trying to make a development that will work. The last thing I want to point out is , the reason I 'm looking to fill this with rental property instead of residential properties is very nicely explained by, it' s in your folder here from Mr . Crawford , the District Engineer for the State Transportation Department. His first comment, residential development is a very noise sensitive land use . Present noise levels along TH 7 exceed state standards for residential development. So basically if I had a Shadowmere or if I had a Cedar , those three developments just south of me on Minnewashta Parkway, really nice bedroom communities. If I had a Fox Run or Covington or Hunter ' s Ridge, I wouldn' t be, because I live there . I 'm going to be looking at these. I wouldn' t want any development that didn ' t look single family in nature so that' s why I 'm bringing in single family level . I don' t think I would fill , there are two other nice bedroom communities opening up for single families that can afford to move in. This will give the needed rental housing for families that they can move into Covingtons and the Waterfords and the Hunter Ridges when they can afford it. This is right on TH 7 so I guess going by what the State, it' s not suitable for residential so we' re not proposing residential . People live here if they can. . .and easy access to TH 7 . They' re not going to build until all this builds in and they say I just II have to be here. Then they might buy my residential lots so it ' s kind of led me to this point . I own 7 other rentals in this area . In fact , this party here has rented from me for 13 years and this party here. This II house is going to be built on 13. This party here has rented from me for 7 years. This one 5 years. Anyway, they are really happy and maybe they want to comment . . . I would thank you for your time. My children can now see me on Channel 20 and if you have any questions, I ' ll be glad to answer them. Brad Sworem: Basically I 'm here to say similar things to what Gary just did. In a nutshell what he' s saying is, this land is not ideally suited for single family residential . To directly address your question of what' s the big need for a change. We' re trying to make the best possible use of the land both for us and for the City. That ' s the whole idea of zoning. Because of Church Street being a collector road and some of the Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 33 C improvements , TH 7 and the Fire Station and the park, there is not any problem with the changing neighborhood. I guess that' s the concern of smaller lot sizes next to large lot sizes . This is , in effect an isolated project. It' s ideally suited for this type of development. The second thing that you have is there is no traffic problems because none of the people who live in these units are going to be passing any other residential homes. They' re not driving through any of those other areas . The major intent of all the zoning rules , the major intent of government subdivision regulations are all being met by the project . We' re asking for the project basically because they need to be able to make a zoning change like this in order to have this type of housing in Chanhassen . If you don ' t permit a change like this, you ' re going to have larger square foot lots . The units themselves are going to be more expensive but the rents are going to be higher . There is nothing to speak of outside of apartments or single family homes available for rent and that ' s the market that we' re trying to get and that ' s the market that we' re asking you as the Planning Commission to be able to meet. Those are really our compelling reasons. There are some more comments that we have in the application and some of the comments of Gary but this zoning fits the property best. It probably should have been zoned like this originally. ' Does that answer your question? Conrad : Keep going. Brad Sworem: The rest of the stuff that I have to say is just basically comments that are good reasons for the project. Number one, we' re looking at putting on 15, 000 square foot lots , over/under two family homes which are obviously different than side by side. They look exactly like a single family home . They give you the sideyard setbacks . They give you the large lots . They give you the rest of those zoning intent ' rules for maximum density per lot . If we were to go to a side by side or a side by side would be appropriate, we would think that the 20, 000 square foot would be appropriate but the 15, 000 certainly does fit ' because of the type of unit we have. We are obviously limiting the amount that they can be rented for because over/under , as we' re constructing them, will only be two bedrooms. Again, we' re trying to segment a market that is not being hit in Chanhassen and we feel , to a ' large extent we need your assistance in being able to cover this. We' ve worked hard at working with the neighbors . Obviously Gary' s been in the neighborhood for years and that' s a big factor in the development. ' . . .all the people, some people may be here today and we do appreciate their support. One of the complex or problems that we have had is trying to fit our proposal with the City' s zoning codes and to a degree it ' s putting square peg into a round hole. We have a proposal for 36 lots and one of the staff ' s concern was we could turn around tomorrow and build a bunch of apartment buildings. We' ve asked how we can propose to change that. I guess contract zoning or agreement , developer ' s agreement or addendum to the platting or anything like that is frowned upon because it ' s contract zoning . I guess the point that we have is , we feel two things. That in talking to staff prior , this is the best way to effectuate the change. Two, with this change we can proceed with it this year. Staff had indicated some other alternatives including planned unit developments . If we were to do that , that would kick it back to next I r Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 34 year . But the basic concept is we' re trying to fit a project that makes sense for us and makes sense to serve that rental market. The density per acre is , I believe on the very lowest end of the medium development ' for the most comprehensive plan so it ' s basically fitting all of the City' s needs , if not necessarily the City' s specific zoning rules and regulations at the present time. The proposal is going to be to have four family units on the south side. Staff has some concerns about the driveway on Lot 16, which is the southeast corner . That certainly can be modified and ask you to make any suggestions or comments on that. We should be able to satisfy any objections you've got today. We would like to suggesting changes or proposals that you want. We would like you to vote in favor of the zoning change so we can get to the City Council so we can get moving on it and start construction still yet this fall and ' maybe put some foundations in and proceed through the winter. Is there anything else Gary? ' Harry Campbell : My name is Harry Campbell . I live on 6241 Church Road . I 'm against the rental because I don' t know what kind of people we' re going to get in there for rentals and what is going to do to my property right across the road from there. That' s the main thing I 'm interested in. The kind of people he' s going to rent to in there. If they' re going to have wild parties over there or what ' s going on over there. That' s my concern and why I 'm against the rental property in there. 114: Terry Toll : My name is Terry Toll , 3851 Church Road. First of all , was there 68 units in this proposal? Dacy: 36. Terry Toll : Okay. I guess I 'm kind of concerned about rentals too . At ' first I agreed on this but I 'm wondering about what kind of people are going to be there . People in and out . We really won ' t get to know them that good. Then something else I was wondering about is, Smith Acres has an easement to Minnetonka and it' s only a 50 foot easement . This is part of Smith Acres so I was wondering how that ' s going to work out. Emmings : Would you explain that . I didn' t understand what you just ' said. Terry Toll : There ' s an easement to Lake Minnetonka for Smith Acres . ' Emmings : Oh, to Lake Minnetonka? Terry Toll : Or Minnewashta , I 'm sorry. Headla: It' s on the north side isn' t it? ' Terry Toll : Yes . Emmings : Could you show us on the map and what it has to do with this . Dacy: What he' s referring to is that Schmidt' s Acre has a grandfathered beachlot . It ' s not used extensively but there is a record of a 50 foot 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 35 II easement for homeowners of Schmidt' s Acres . I Conrad : And where is Schmidt' s Acres . Okay. So that should not affect this parcel at all right? I Dacy: This parcel is , I can' t remember if it ' s Lot 4 or 5 or both. This is the Schmidt' s Acre lot. The part to the north of the Schmidt' s Acre II lot . Lots to the west of Schmidt' s Acre lot and parcels down and across the road . Right in here there' s a 50 foot easement that was created many moons ago. Very similiar to the Pleasant Acres situation. The same policies would apply. Our records what verify what existed as of the II adoption date of the beachlot ordinance and any expansion as far as docks , boats , moorings, etc . . Conrad: But it still could be used? I Dacy: If they wanted to contest that further . Terry Toll : Then I was wondering, if they want to develop another II development , not Gary because he don ' t have land , off to the west , where would that traffic going through have? We live right in here, is there, 11 what ' s this right here? Would that be a road that could be opened up to the cartway? Conrad : Yes . I Terry Toll : Then with the people that are going to be in these housing development, how' s that going to affect the park? Is that going to be II too many people for that park? Conrad: That' s not our park. II Batzli : But they look at this development and park around it . Will they collect fees in lieu of? IIConrad : I 'm sure they haven' t look at this? Batzli : But they looked at it previously under the old . I Headla : Yes they did . Batzli : So they' re not going to put trails or anything around there? So II people would probably tend to congregate over . . . Terry Toll : Then I was also concerned about the value of our house . I Will it go up or will it go down? The rental people usually don ' t take care of their houses as well as people that own them because it ' s not simply theirs. We' re concerned about the parties. Maybe four people II moving into , what kind of cars are they going to be driving? So we' re concerned about that. At first I thought it was a good idea and we' ve `, been thinking , talking to neighbors and I 'm kind of against it . II II Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 36 C ' Merlyn Wanous : My name is Merlyn Wanous and I live at 6231 Church Road . I guess in general all the objections that have been mentioned, I object to also . In fact , it' s going to be a long term development. All the ' houses out there are single family residential . As you stated, Shorewood does own that park. What is going to prevent Shorewood from selling that park if he does get development to some other developer? Another concern of mine is if this project should fall through, if he should decide to ' sell it, will someone, if he does get this R-8 zoning, will they take advantage of this zoning and become apartment houses or put something that's going to not be in confirmation with the rest of the neighborhood? ' He also mentioned that he has approval from Mr . Kerber but he didn' t mention that Mr . Kerber has his property for sale. It is rental property. It is all older housing out there but I guess , like Mr . Toll ' says , Mr . McPherson does have a little acreage there. It is low land but a lot of development has gone into low land so I guess we are concerned about the neighborhood and I guess we ' re concerned about the influx of people that are going to be there. We' ve been there for 28 years . We ' are used to the open land . I admit that and I would like to see , we do approve of these single family residential . I think that' s a good idea but now when you start bringing in apartments and all these other people ' like they did mention, a lot of undesirable, the fair housing law does not permit him to decide who he ' s going to rent to . He has to rent to whoever comes to rent. So I guess that ' s one of our primary concerns . Thank you. I Terry Toll : We do have two little kids and we' d like them to get to know families that plan on sticking around. Maybe they will decide to like ' the area and move into a house they can afford someday. Usually rental people are on the move. They don' t plan on sticking around so I guess that was kind of one of the concerns of ours . That we'd like to see people move and get to know them a little bit. Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in ' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : I think a good place to start , do we have a City map, zoning map someplace here? Other than the one on the wall . Barbara, could you just walk around this property and kind of tell us what , I guess what I 'm doing is asking, trying to go back and if you could remind us of how we 11 arrived at the zoning for that whole area up in the northwest corner of Chanhassen. Is it all RSF? Dacy: Yes . Maybe I can start with those blanks first . The neighborhood ' by the north side of Lake Minnewashta and Pleasant Acres Subdivision and the scattered developments north of TH 7 in the Church Road area , a lot of these areas were subdivided in the 50 ' s and 60' s and I think during ' the early 80 ' s when the City was looking at the first blush of the Comp Plan, made a policy decision to keep this area in a similiar land use pattern . Then when we revised our ordinances , our zoning ordinance in ' 1986 and 1987, then you merely apply the RSF District over the land use category that was established through the Comp Plan . Beyond that , the 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 37 ' only site that has entertained the different land use is the TH 7/TH 41 site. That' s on the area west of TH 41. Erhart : So the closest medium density is where? In this whole area . ' Dacy: The closest medium density would be the area that' s just west of City Hall here adjacent to downtown and is on the agenda later on. Erhart: Why did we select that as medium density? Dacy: The City wanted to create higher density projects adjacent to downtown to create population and because of the access to service those transportation traffic . Also , we wanted a buffer between the industrial park on the south side and wanted to provide areas for different styles II of housing . That was the big issue in the Lake Susan Hills West PUD last summer was how much multiple family land should be provided so those were the two primary areas during the Comp Plan review that we looked at for higher density. Erhart : Do you think we' re deficient in multiple family area now? Dacy: Right now as zoned and planned for , we' ve got a good mix as far as , I think it' s 75% single family and 25% multiple family. It ' s a policy decision that you have to make. Erhart : Of the areas we have medium zoned , medium density now, is any of that being developed into multiple family housing? Dacy: Outside of the application that ' s on tonight ' s agenda , that ' s about it outside of the Jacobson townhomes right next door . Erhart : So there ' s adequate land that ' s accessible to sewer? We aren ' t in any urgent need to rezone additional land? Dacy: That ' s a question that you have to answer . ' Erhart: I know but you deal with it everyday. Dacy: We have vacant land available at this point . Erhart: But you don' t see any urgent need to add anything to it? Medium density. I guess I 'm not . . . recommendations from the standpoint of staff, there' s no urgency to add to our inventory of medium density. Dacy: Urgency, no . We have adequate lands now. Whether or not you want more is . . . Erhart : More specifically, . . . it ' s all RSF so again, the area to the north, the City of Shorewood , that' s a park? Dacy: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 38 C ' Erhart : Make sure I get it correct this time since I made one mistake already. That ' s a park. The area to the northwest is some single family homes . Immediate west is some wetlands . What ' s on the east side of ' Church Road? Dacy: There are four houses . The Wanous ' , the Campbell ' s , Terry ' Larson' s house and the gentleman who lives immediately on the corner . Erhart : And to the south is? Dacy: There' s a fire station and the . . .property and the Schmidt ' s. Erhart: I guess my comment is, I ' ve heard some reasons from a developer ' s standpoint why he would like to have this rezoned but I guess I haven' t heard so far , good arguments why we should rezone it from the standpoint of City planning . Maybe with further questions , I ' ll see it but I don ' t see it. Emmings : I heard even less than Tim did . I only heard conclusions . I didn' t hear any reasons. I heard people say that this is the best zoning for this piece of land but I didn' t hear any reasons why it was . I thought the original plan was very appropriate to the area and to the land . To have single family with some multiple, with some twin homes I along TH 7 made pretty good sense to me. I would be absolutely opposed to any R-8 in that area . That ' s stepping it up quite a few notches it seems to me in intensity and I don' t see any reason for that whatsoever . It might be that I 'd be persuaded to do all R-4 . That' s the only one that I could even go to as a fallback position but basically I think that the original plan for single family homes with the twins along the highway was a good one and I don' t see any reason to change it. The handicap accessibility thing is very interesting to me and a very attractive feature and I would hope that if there ' s only twin homes along TH 7, that would still be incorporated even if we don ' t go along with the zoning. One of the presenters brought out attention to this Department of Transportation letter stating that residential development is very noise sensitive land use and the present noise levels along TH 7 exceed State standards for residential development . I guess I have a question ' for Barb there. I take it that just because it exceeds the standards doesn ' t mean that development is in anyway prevented? ' Dacy: No. Emmings : That paragraph goes on to say that we suggest that every effort has been made in design of the development to lessen the impact this might have on it . I guess that ' s the berm and the trees . I don ' t know if that' s doing enough and I particularly don' t know if it ' s doing enough in light of the next paragraph which says that TH 7 is probably going to widened out and that the lots platted directly adjacent should probably be deeper than normal to make the plat more compatible to future plans. I 'm concerned about that part along the highway. I remember that we were ' relunctant at the time we approved the first plan , we asked a lot of questions about why twin homes would be acceptable in this area. Now we' re being asked to go to something that would allow apartment Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 39 , buildings. One of the reasons , I think that I was persuaded that it I would be alright here were some marketing concerns about putting , sort of having a transition. Not being able to sell single family homes along the highway. That plus the fact that there are already some twin homes to the west on TH 7 on the south side so I thought it seemed like a pretty reasonable approach to the development of the land. I can not see going to R-8 . That' s all I ' ve got . Ellson : It ' s such a drastic change from the last one. I guess I don' t have a whole lot of new things but I agree with MnDot that I don' t think you'd do too well having single family homes against the highway but again, as Steve had said, that was sort of addressed with the original study. I don ' t know, if the real reason is that he needs more rental income or what have you, I really like the other one better. We sat down with a land use pattern and tried to figure out what to do and I wasn ' t the one who did it but there must have been logic behind it and I haven ' t heard any reasons why it was illogical before. I think it looks logical and as I said before, if this gets done, then that' s just opening the door for the next one to be changed as well without any good reason to change it. I really don' t think it ' s necessary. Maybe if I had seen this first or something like that but I really like the other one better than this one. There' s 36 homes or 36 families worth on one cul-de-sac, that ' s an awful lot going in and out so I would vote against it. Batzli : Again, I don' t have a whole lot to add. My only comment is that II I think that the first plan demonstrated that the zoning was workable for this area . I think it was a fairly good plan and I don' t think that there' s really been a need demonstrated or an incompatibility demonstrated other than perhaps the one sentence out of the Department of Transportation letter that something needs to be done about the noise but there are other ways to handle that than to build fourplexes rather than duplexes. I think if there was a real need to be creative, the appropriate way to handle it wouldn' t necessarily be the R-8 in any event but might be PUD or some other vehicle. I 'm against this . Headla : Talking about 36 units here? We haven' t talked about parkland but how many were there , 27 on the previous one and we spent how many minutes talking about parkland? I think we should talk about parkland if II we want to increase, putting in this type of density because we don' t have any parks out here . The closest one that the City put in is 6 or 7 miles away. , Batzli : There' s a park in Minnewashta Heights . Ellson: I 'm sure these people would use the Shorewood park. Headla : I like the first plan Gary came up with . I thought that was , he really worked with it and he was. . . I think it ' s still a workable plan . I like all the trees he has here but . . . I want to stay with the original II plan. Conrad : When we talk about land use plan , by the way. Our land use ' plan, when was the last time, and this shows I 'm losing it somehow, when Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 40 C did we update the Land Use Plan? Dacy: Right now we' re currently in the process . Conrad : It ' s there but it ' s not been approved? Dacy: Right. So the last time that we looked at the Land Use Chapter was last fall I believe. Conrad : In the proposed land use , that ' s not had a public hearing , we have designated this as a greater intensity use than residential single family? Dacy: Right . Conrad : In the previous land use plan , it was similiar? We have not changed it? It seems to me that if the developer , and obviously he has a parcel to work with here and needs to do something but I guess it' s still out of context here. We ' re looking at this particular parcel and I guess as other commissioners have said , I haven' t heard a compelling reason to change land use. That ' s why I introduced our needs when we take a look at land use . I think you have to relate to what we look at . That ' s transition. That' s need. Services . Fire services are taken care of here but shopping centers . Consumer oriented things we' re concerned 114: with. You notice that we tend to cluster higher development around those services and that ' s what we' ve been trying to do. I think some of the things like fire protection is taken care of. Transportation system other than a terrificly long cul-de-sac with a whole lot of people on it. In this design, that kind of bothers me but I 'm not looking at your design as much as I 'm just looking at your conceptual things. I think we' re missing some things that I look for. I think you are abutted up against some residential area and I don ' t know, I think we in Chanhassen had planned on how we' re going to use the land or how the owner of the land to the east might want to subdivide but so far , in my mind I haven ' t seen a major reason to say this is a great higher density area. You haven ' t done it yet . The City hasn ' t told me that we need more high density units . The City is telling us we plan acceptably well . It doesn ' t mean we ' re right . It does mean that right now there' s a level of comfort that we can satisfy the need. I would stick with, I 'm comfortable that we can put higher density on TH 7 . I think that makes sense. I think you tried to do that with your last plan. I 'm not comfortable at all with the R-8 district . Not at all . I think there may be something that I could look at in the R-4 but even then, I still have some, R-4 which you ' ve already got on part of your parcel . I 'm just not sure what that gives you and I 'm not sure what the transition. I 'm not sure if we 'd have good transitions to the neighborhoods to the west . To the northwest. To the east. I 'm a little bit uncomfortable. The opportunity that I see for you is taking this forth to the City Council and in their wisdom may see something that we don' t. The other t opportunity that I see for you is to create a scenario for us as we hold ( . public hearings in the future when we ' re talking about Comprehensive Plans and we look at everything . It ' s really tough for us to take a look at one parcel . It' s classic spot zoning . It ' s classic take care of the I Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 43 I want to have 64 units , they would go . . . so fast . They don' t want to see I 64 units . I don' t want to see 64 units . I want this development, low density. Residential . . . Conrad : It ' s not true . Come on. Chanhassen really is a residential community. We' re here every two weeks and we listen to the neighbors , what they want and we kind of echo some of what the neighborhoods say. There are very few neighbors that come into this chamber and say we want higher density. What we had granted to you last time, we gave you higher density because we understand where you are and you' re sensitive to TH 7 . We granted that . You are not bringing in a low density. You are not bringing in a low density development here. I 'm looking at the numbers , you' re not bringing in a low density so don' t give me that argument. You' re putting in more units on the property than what we originally were I looking at but we felt comfortable with that . Now you' re putting in a few more units. You' re asking for zoning that gives you the capacity to put a lot more units than this plan . We' re not reacting to your plan tonight . We' re reacting to a Comprehensive Plan and a Zoning Ordinance amendment which you requested . We have to react to that . I don ' t want to react to what you' re really doing here. You' re asking for zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments that give you that ability. You ' re asking for that and that ' s what we have to react to and we did. You ' re asking us , what the community wants and we' ll kind of , and I 'm speaking for myself and the Commissioners you can jump in any time. I don' t speak for the balance of the group but we have not considered this area as a higher density area and you can see that on our Comprehensive Plan. You could see it in what we' re proposing to the community within months . There just hasn' t been expressed a need. There hasn' t been expressed a need that we need more units , rental units like this in this economic category in that area . We haven' t heard it yet. You ' re coming in and telling us that you want to do it. You haven ' t told us that there ' s a need for it yet. Gary Carlson : We rented this one on a Sunday. I had 25 calls and I have I 5 couples . Beautiful people. I thought to myself Gary, how can you decide which one to rent to so I said, I just rented it and I picked one of those 5. How many families can afford $600. 00 in rent and not . . . Conrad : Then you' re going to have to present a need to us and you haven ' t I dont that at all tonight. Gary Carlson : If you want to . . . Conrad : I don ' t want to interview them either . We don' t have that time . That' s not our job but you have to present that need and I think you have an opportunity next week or in two weeks when you go to City Council and you can present that need there and if they feel comfortable with it, I think they can make that decision but you haven' t done that to me at least tonight. I understand economics and I understand what it takes to put people in a particular deal at a certain price but I haven ' t seen the `- need and I haven' t heard the community say to me that we need more of those units . I didn ' t hear the neighbors say that tonight either . They' re not violently objecting to this yet on the other hand they' re not Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 44 saying , that ' s the greatest thing . I want it in my neighborhood . I didn' t hear one person come in and say I want that here. If it' s a little bit higher density, and most residents don ' t want a little bit higher density. Then you put in renters in their neighborhood and that' s why we tend to cluster units like this in different places than we have designated here. But what I said is I think you have opportunities to ' persuade us and I think we also said that maybe a little bit higher , I think in the past we granted a little bit higher densities and I ' ll open it up for other comments here in terms of what other commissioners feel is appropriate for this land. Steve? Emmings : There are a whole bunch of other kind of comments that could be made on this project I think and I tried to stay kind of broad and ' general because I opposed it on a conceptual idea . That it should go to R-8 just seems preposterous to me and I thought the original plan was a good one but if we were going to look at this plan , and this is a much finer point, you' ve got all these twin homes and you' re talking about ' families moving in there . The reality of talking about young families that can' t yet afford to buy homes so they' re living in housing of this kind , you ' ve got a two car garage on each one of these twin homes and ' each one of the families that live in there are going to have two cars . They' re not going to have one car because that ' s also a modern reality so we' ve got two cars in garages and where do the other two cars park? ' There are a lot of other , I 'm not asking for any answers but there are a whole lot of fine points of that nature. We' re looking at this on a finer level that I think you want to have addressed but I don ' t think we have to spend the time looking at the project at that level because there ' s no reason to change the zoning . Conrad: Tim anything? Annette, any additions that you can see? Brian? Batzli : Just my earlier comment that if there was a creative need for this area, I think you'd be looking at a more acceptable way to go about it. Conrad : If there was a creative need , and you feel 8 acres could support. What' s our minimum for a PUD Barbara acreage wise? Do we have ' a minimum acreage? Is our new ordinance going to have? Dacy: No. ' Conrad : It ' s hard to be creative in a small area like this and designate it a PUD unless you' ve got some unique phsical characteristic , right? Dacy: The major advantage the PUD gives you is the ability to base approval on a specific development . That' s what the applicant is saying . I don ' t want to build 64 units . I want to build 36 units and ' his request is that we consider the PUD as an option to build that plan . Gary Carlson : I ' ll drop these fours and make them. . . I read that State highway report and they said they want, see these fours come pretty close to TH 7 . I 'd be willing to , that ' s why if you see a how, I ' ll come back with a PUD. I ' ll make these fours into twos . I Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 45 I Dacy: Again , if the Commission really prefers the original plan that was 1 proposed, that type of direction is to be given to the applicant. If you do not consider the entire piece as twin homes , then that should be said II now. Ellson : You did a good sell job on the last one and you were behind it just as much as you are now. All of a sudden you don' t like your last one because all loved it and we still do. Gary Carlson: This is the layout . I Ellson: With extra people. Extra cars . Conrad: Would anybody on the Planning Commission accept this coming back II as a PUD? Emmings : Not if there is a development this intense . I think that ' s the II message. Maybe we'd look at it as a PUD but I think the message is that the level of intensity of the development as we originally saw it we thought was appropriate and we think this is too high. That ' s what II I think. I don ' t care if you call it a PUD or a zinger . I 'm going to be against it if the intensity is this high . Gary Carlson : I would drop the units . . . 1 Ellson: Maybe that' s an idea with the City Council . Conrad : Yes , and I think you should be talking to City Council too . II Anything else? Is there a motion? Erhart : I move that we recommend denial of Land Use Plan Amendment I Request #88-6 and Rezoning Request #88-1 based on the findings that the density permitted in the medium density residential category and the R-8 II zoning district would permit a land use pattern which is more intense in scale and character than the existing land use pattern. Ellson: I ' ll second it . I Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to II deny Land Use Plan Amendment #88-6 and Rezoning Request #88-1 based on the following findings : 1. The density permitted in the medium density residential category and II the R-8 zoning district would permit a land use pattern which is more is more intense in scale and character than the existing land use pattern. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried . II II 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 46 C PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46, 700 SQUARE FEET INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 24 , 300 AND 22, 400 ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON LONE CEDAR CIRCLE BETWEEN LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND HWY. 5, RALPH KANT. Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report . ' Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Ralph Kant : I 'm Ralph Kant at the residence , 3820 Lone Cedar . I guess the only comment I have is that I have been taking care of this land , this 60 foot piece, cutting the grass and so on, for 14 years so now I 'm just asking the City to consider vacating the land. I don ' t, in my conversations with staff and so on, there would be no plan to put a road in there. In talking with the neighbor to the east, he would like to have an easement so he can get onto Lone Cedar across that property and I have no argument with that. That ' s the way it would be developed. There is the driveway from that property onto Lone Cedar and any easement, roadway would utilize that same access onto Lone Cedar . That' s already in existence . Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla : I think the whole use is appropriate and I agree with the staff' s recommendation. Batzli : I don' t have any questions . Ellson: Looks clean. Emmings : Just a key point . Number 2, you want to plan for installation of dock and removal of lakeshore vegetation to City Staff for approval . I want that just to say that that plan comes in before there ' s any installation or removal because otherwise it' s going to be done in the other order . That ' s all I ' ve got . Erhart: I don' t have any comments . Emmings moved , Erhart 'seconded that the Planning. Pl nnzng Commzssaon recommend approval of Subdivision #88-3 as shown on the plat stamped "Received August 15, 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1. The proposed street vacation must be approved by the City Council ' with each lot maintaining at least 20, 000 square feet and 90 feet of street frontage. 2. A plan for the installation of a dock and removal of any lakeshore I vegetation must be submitted to city staff for approval prior to any installation or removal . . II Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 47 ' C 3 . The applicant shall submit plans for the construction of the driveway 1 for Lot 1, Block 1 to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat review. ' 4. The applicant shall obtain written approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the construction of the driveway onto Lone Cedar Road prior to final plat review. 5. The proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 shall maintain a minimum separation of 100 feet from State Highway 5. 1 6. A 15 foot utility and drainage easement shall be centered over the 12 inch diameter watermain for the entire length of the right-of-way to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried . DERAND CORPORATION, LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 17, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, OAK VIEW APARTMENTS: ' A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18 . 9 ACRES INTO FOUR R-12 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DIRECT STORM WATER INTO A CLASS B WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 136 APARTMENT UNITS . Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Ellson : What did you say on Powers Blvd . , there' s going to be a right-in right-out or you won' t be able to take a left in? Brown : Correct . Ellson : What' s going to prevent you from doing that is what I 'm wondering? Brown: They would have to create some sort of triangular island out here II that would prevent that type of movement. The problem with those, we have a Q-Superette that' s out there . It has a right-in/right-out island and they do get abused and the County' s not real favorable on that type of situation . I know that the applicants are here tonight and wish to get any suggestions or comments from the Planning Commission so they can proceed through the process again at a later date . They' ve indicated to me that they'd like to see this done. Conrad : In terms of traffic analysis right now though Larry, there ' s nothing that we can react to . Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 48 r Brown: I 'm afraid not. BRW is still looking at this scenario . There ' s one option of trying to shorten this island up but right now it ' s just not looking favorable because we need the stacking distance for left hand turning movements onto West 78th Street. Pushing the island further north, in talking with the County, they' re not real sure that that ' s going to eliminate the U turn situation so those people have a choice up here as to going into Excelsior in a straight line or doubling back to go through downtown. Conrad : The island ' s purpose again is what? Brown: It' s going into a four lane road between TH 5 and West 78th Street and then creating the guidance and the channelization is to taper that down into two lane again. Emmings : The project that they' re proposing to build fits on this thing where? Brown : It ' s in this area right here . Erhart: And where' s the wetland? Brown : Right through here. The right-of-way that they have proposed lines up, it will be exact to the West Village Townhome center line and their intent is , with the tax increment district , hopefully the City can do the feasibility to get that road pushed through. Ellson : Does it have to go all the way to Powers? Could it just be ending? Brown : With this type of density, if we were to get a full movement intersection out here , maybe we could consider that. However , with this type of density, it seems reasonable with our plans , in the past to try and push this road through. It fits our Comp Plan. They' re proposing it . Let ' s get it . . .can support the density. Dacy: If we can' t get the access onto Powers , it makes the access to the I property to the north much more important . That was a condition of approval on the original plat that there be connection. The City wants two full movement intersections accessing that area . IBrown: You ' ve all seen my note regarding the tabling. I relayed that to the applicant . He still wishes to be heard by the Commission. IConrad: I think what we ' ll do is , I don' t think we need to hold a public hearing at this juncture but I think we would certainly let the applicant speak to us and if we can provide any kind of comments that we may have I on the project in general . Is that acceptable? That we not hold a public hearing? Ed Flanner : I 'm Ed Flanner . I live and work in Savannah, Georgia . I am I the principle with DeRand, which is next door to Arlington, Virginia . There are several comments that have been made by. . . in Minneapolis that Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 55 Brown: There ' s quite a list of reasons . Some of them are still coming in, as a matter of fact, as to why that island has ended exactly where it was . If you' re real familiar with the area . . . Emming: That ' s something, when I look at it , it looks to me like that would be way to get two full intersections in there and still reduce it but just a little further north back to two lanes . If that ' s ridiculous, fine. If it hasn ' t been considered , then take a look at it. Conrad: My only comments are really consistent with staff report . Maximum 35% lot coverage. That ' s got to be. I don ' t care how you do it and I wasn' t going to let you off by reducing road sizes either . I think you' ve got to come up with the 35% someway and if you do, it will sail through. We talked about the wetlands . You hear our point on the wetlands . Don' t need to belabor that point . The 25 foot frontyard setback, you' ve got to meet that. Those are just some absolutes that we just don ' t slack off of at all . Anything else? Ed Flanner : May I interject one other issue? That is the handicap. We have this symmetrical building . . . 8 units . If I expand this area , particularly with the handicap having a 12 foot space, what I 'd like to do is put 2 handicap units per building so that I would have a balance in the way the building is built. The report asks that we mix them and _ spread them throughout the project . I feel . . . for the maximum 2 handicap units in the building . Ellson : What was your reason for that? Ed Flanner : It ' s a design use. Ellson : I understand that but what was her reasoning for the opposite? Dacy: I 'm not sure and I ' ll work with the applicant on it. Headla moved , Batzli seconded to table action on the preliminary plat , wetland alteration permit and site plan review for the DeRand Corporation . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS IN A FREE STANDING BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. Public Present : Name Address Roman Roos Applicant _ Jerome Carlson Barbara Dacy waived the staff report due to the hour of the meeting . Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 56 C ' Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Batzli moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in ' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ellson : The only thing I wondered is , by doing this , do they have a rule ' that whoever ' s using this building is the only one who can use that day care or then does it fall into , like any other day care , whether I work there or not, I can use that day care? Does it make that any more strict that whoever ' s in the industrial office park is limited to it? Are there any restrictions on it to people from the outside? Dacy: I asked the City Attorney that question and the City would not be ' able to go that far in how exactly who' s children the day care center could . . . As a free standing use , it' s up to them. Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission approves Zoning Ordinance ' Amendment Request #88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows : (13) State Licensed Day Care Centers . And additionally to add Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers as provided in the Staff Report , conditions 1, ' 2, 3 or whatever those are. Erhart : Second . Bill Boyt : It would seem to me that you' re going to pass this onto Council with no comment virtually. This is going to be a difficult issue. I would like you to think about , because many of you are parents , what we think the issues are so you could at least lay out what the Council people should be thinking about . One that jumps immediately to my mind is that we have intentionally kept them out of the Office Park ' previously. There are some good reasons for why it would be nice to have child care very close to where a person is working. There are some definite drawbacks I think to having child care in an industrial office ' park. I 'd just like you to, if you' ve thought about any of the issues , if you could just identify what you think the issues are, it might help the level of the discussion when this gets to City Council . ' Erhart : What do you think the drawbacks are Bill? Bill Boyt: I think it depends on what they' re next to I suppose but let ' s suppose that we' ve got , as it turns out , they' re next to the mini- storage area. Now we' re going to have traffic potentially all day long . Basically unsupervised . Do we run any safety risks by putting one in an industrial office park? Do we have any considerations for should it be ' any different if it' s in an industrial office park than if it' s downtown or if it' s somewhere else? I don' t know. I haven' t really thought about this issues other than just I know it ' s not going to be a simple yes or no kind of discussion when it gets voted on. Batzli : I think all the concerns that you raise are ones that would be ' addressed . It' s being added as a conditional use, as I understand it . That ' s going to have to be reviewed on a site by site basis . If you want us to adopt standards, further standards than what we just added, we . r Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 57 1 could consider that. I don' t know. That ' s a good point . , Bill Boyt: I don' t know either Brian but I wasn' t hearing anything that was going to be real helpful . I Ellson : As long as it ' s a conditional use , it means we get to say, now this is by a mini-storage, therefore we' re adding some stuff . , Emmings : I think what you ' re hearing is we all think it ' s a good idea. Conrad : We all thought it was a good idea when it was in a building and the building that would service the employees of that building . We' re lumping these two together but the point that Bill brings up is probably pretty valid . All of a sudden there ' s a free standing building . We no longer have the same rules. It is now not necessarily functioning for that one company which we were all really comfortable with with Instant Webb before because again, it wasn' t a profit motive. It was a service motive to the employees . Now we've got a different situation . Emmings: I don' t think so. The reason I don' t think so is that I think people need day care and I think it ' s important . I think it' s nice to have it by where they work. Conrad : But you wouldn' t necessarily put it in an industrial? Emmings: I would put it there and frankly, unless I worked there, I wouldn ' t want to take my kid down into that probably either . I think it' s going to primarily be used by those people down there and if other people want to bring there children there , I don' t care. It seems to me the important thing is that day care is available for people who need it and where it is , if people don' t like it down there, then they can take their kid someplace else. That' s almost a market factor . Conrad : Your industrial parks are typically, they' re maybe not designed for pedestrians and whatever so you don' t feel any sensitivity to kids going out and playing? Emmings : But they' re going to have to provide a place for the kids to go out and play and that may be a little difficult for them in the industrial park than some other setting . That ' s why I think as a matter of fact, the people who are going to want to use this thing in the ' industrial park are people who are going to be working there and are going to be handy to it. I don' t think anyone' s going to chose that location. Conrad : Are we comfortable we' ve thought about this first item enough? Thought about the situation? Steve has . Erhart : There is requirements for outdoor play area and that ' s in the overall requirements . Ellson : The drop off point , that usually means a separate driveway so you' re dropping off your kid on a road that' s got traffic going back and II . Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 58 C ' forth. Dacy: As a free standing facility, there can be more flexibility to address those separation issues and safety issues. I think it' s going to be more of a problem on the next item as part of the a multi-tenant office building where you have to go back and review parking areas and ' reconfigure existing situations . Conrad : Everybody comfortable we' ve done our homework on this first one? Jerome Carlson: I 'm Jerome Carlson, the CEO of the three companies. We'd • like to proceed with this project . . . .my comments as far as it relates to traffic, is that in our plan will be reviewed whether we want to put ' it into the Instant Webb building or not , I can assure that one of the two primary factors . . .had to do with this very same issue. The corner of that building where we were going to put this day care was where all of our heavy trucks entered the premises to go around to the back to unload and then when they exit , they come right back around the same corner and this caused a lot of concern on my part and on the part of . . . We didn' t feel it was something we couldn' t manage . We planned to put up the ' appropriate security fence. . . The other reason that we chose not to use the Instant Webb site is because the space requirements that we found ourselves having as we do continue to grow. We then chose to a site I close by, off-site . With all due respect , I think you will find that the safety standards of that particular site is very isolated. As far as the monitoring of traffic , there is no traffic . It ' s a dead end and it is , I think appropriate from a traffic standpoint . . . Relative to the question of whether we are private or public as far as the personnel that would be using this location . Our intent remains to provide a service for our employee group. The surveys that we took clearly indicate that what we ' are intending to do is in line with the survey needs . For some reason that facility does not attract from the employee base, we would certainly then in order to operate it on a break even basis , which is really all we ' want, we would then want to reach out to the. . .public. But that is not the objective here. The objective is to provide quality, cost . . .day care for our employees. That ' s not changing . ' Roman Roos : . . .permitted use, free standing or otherwise . The conditional use process lets you look at each item. . . I think in terms of a free standing day care center , such as the one we' re presenting to ' you, or a day care center in an existing complex, both really serve the same needs . . . We ' re just finishing up one in Chaska right now. . . for two companies. One is for a manufacturing company. . . I think the thing that we' re looking for tonight is to get a recommendation to the Council that day care, free standing or otherwise, is a desirous thing. The issues . . . the traffic , all of those can be handled on the site plan review. . . ' Conrad: Bill , are you seeing something? I think we were going through the first item here because we' ve obviously talked about this before and we ' re pretty much rubber stamping it, until you made us stay later . What ' other issues , do you see other issues or are you just really saying , hey any other thoughts that we have? Are you uncomfortable? Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 59 ' Bill Boyt : I 'm not opposed to this . I simply want to be comfortable , that when we put into the office park, because we are now moving it out of a building . The first one , I think the Council was , one of the conditions of approval was that this would apply only to people who worked in that facility, as I recall . So we' re changing the parameters . We' re making it, as Mr . Carlson said, basically a free standing day care. When we do that, I just want to make sure we do it right . There' s certainly a need. We've had some more discussion about it. It gives me a little bit of a feel where they' re coming from. I think it' s very important that we know exactly what the standards are. I 'd like to see in the staff report Barbara , that those be more spelled out . . .to go with the existing State standards . Maybe the State standards aren' t good enough. Batzli : I think that these guys are going to do a fine job and we ' re ' amending the ordinance and we don' t know what will come in through the door the next time around . Conrad : Any more thoughts along this line? Tim, are you comfortable that we' re reacting with enough information? Erhart : I don ' t know much about day care centers because I haven ' t used it. I guess I would basically make the assumption that there are some pretty good rules in effect in regulating them. We' re using the , it would be okay here, from a safety standpoint I guess. The overall feeling was that this probably would be safer , I 'm comparing it with a private home, safer than a private home. Better fire protection. It' s more of a disciplined environment in the industrial park. Private homes tend to be private. Things happen in private homes that. . . Conrad : And you feel comfortable that we can put this type of operation into a free standing unit? Erhart : Overall , I 'm very comfortable with it . I think yes , maybe we should spend a little more time reviewing the Code and learning more about day care centers but then again . . . Conrad: And you don' t care who goes to that day care center? , Erhart : No, I don ' t think it makes a difference. I think it ' s a great business . ' Emmings : Let me tell you how I feel about day care . I can remember the panic in my own breast when both my wife and I had to go to work and something had to be done with our child . It ' s a great need out in this area in particular. I think we should do everything we can to make that type of service available . Especially for people who work out in Chanhassen. Having your kids close by to where you work, for those times when they need you and you have to be there , is really an important thing . Conrad : Brian , do you want to amend your motion? 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting ISeptember 7 , 1988 - Page 60 l ' Batzli : I 'd be happy to accept the suggestion that if staff would like to look at additional safety points for inclusion for the Council ' s consideration , that' s fine. ' Conrad : Was your motion ever seconded? ' Batzli : I don ' t recall . Dacy: Tim did . ' Conrad : Tim, would you amend your second? Erhart: Sure. Batzli moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows : (13) State Licensed Day Care Centers . Additionally, to add Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers : 1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements . 2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which ' mitigates visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas . 3 . Each center shall obtain applicable state , county and city licenses . Also, that staff will look into additional safety points for Council ' s consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE ' CENTERS AS PART OF A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. ' Public Present: Name Address Scott Anderson Applicant Sue Building Block Day Care Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . CChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . II Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 61 1 Scott Anderson : My name is Scott Anderson and I 'm with Anderson and ' Associates. We' re corporate adminstrative consultants working with New Horizon Day Care. New Horizon Day Care has about 30+ locations currently in the 7 county market and this particular location, working with Heitman II will be the , there are three that we' re currently working with with Heitman Properties. The property of course was developed by Opus and Heitman is the current owner . Heitman being a pension fund that owns properties such as IDS Tower and the City Center and First Bank East and West and little things like that around the Twin Cities market . Just to respond to a few of the quick issues that were brought up earlier, in general I think day care is just an extremely rapidly growing industry and initially when the concept of day care was to put them closer to residential uses . Now I think a vast majority of expansion in day care that we ' re seeing on behalf of New Horizons and other day care clients as well , is to be closer to the place of work than closer to home . That ' s one of the biggest single reasons that in Chanhassen you' re seeing this . We' re in front of Minnetonka . We' re in front of the City of Minneapolis , Burnsville. There are already current locations within industrial parks in multi-tenant buildings. As an example , Eden Prairie on West 70th Street, . . . is probably the closest one. In Minneapolis, we get a multi- tenant building . In Minnetonka , a multi-tenant building . We' re looking ' for facilities in downtown Minneapolis and in the last couple weeks a multi-tenant office building was suggested in Minneapolis showing a day care. In fact, day care on the skyway system in downtown St. Paul with access to rooftop for playground . Day Care is just in tremendous demand and what we have is a very good operator, New Horizon Day Care. When you look at some of the information in there, it ' s considered one of the best in the United States and they come very highly recommended. They' ve always been high in the State of Minnesota standards, which by the way, the State of Minnesota has some of the strictest safety standards in the United States , if not the strictest so I think when you consider day care, as far as safety issues , the State of Minnesota really does a real strong look at every single one of these facilities . In addition, New Horizon has been in business since 1971. This is non-profit corporation II that will be running this particular facility called Building Blocks . If there is additional space available, and it 's only if, there ' s a very small percentage chance another one of the elements that may be incorporated into this facility is something called Chicken Soup. It ' s for sick kids . It' s another thing we' re working with to expand throughout the Twin Cities market. Again, the present demand to work with the companie8 , close to the companies for care of the sick children as well as an entity that would provide, subsidize through the corporation , day care . With that , if you have any questions . Sue from Building Block : . . . One of the things that I wanted to point out II is the real benefit we have being close to work is when you already have a provider in another location, a neighbor or another center , if something happens and you can ' t get there , . . . we have all the . . .call in sick. I can' t come today, my provider is sick. I don' t know what I 'm cgoing to do . . . Scott Anderson : . . .we already have a waiting list in excess of 30 students without any advertising. Without any marketing so the demand . . . I 1 . Planning Commission Meeting ISeptember 7 , 1988 - Page 62 We are close to 50o tuition filled and we' ve done nothing but word of mouth so there' s another side of the demand. Emmings moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings : I don ' t like this one. I shouldn' t say I don' t like it . My reservations about it being in multi-tenant buildings as opposed to a fre standing facility is simply access . One of my concerns , I 'm not using ' day care anymore. One of my major concerns when I did use day care is who has access to that building? How do we know, if you' ve got a multi-tenant building, you' ve got a lot more people coming and going. ' Both the people who have offices there and any clients they might be seeing and deliveries being made. It seems to me that security in a multi-tenant building is totally different than in a free standing ' building. They probably know a lot more about that than I do but I think maybe we want standards for a multi-tenant building that says that the entrance and the exit to the day care facility is separate and distinct from the access to the building itself. ' Scott Anderson: It definitely is . Conrad : We' re not reviewing your application. ' Emmings: I 'm glad you thought about it. I guess what I 'm saying ng zs , maybe we ought to have that built in here. Ellson: In case the next guy doesn' t . Conrad : Why? Emmings : I suppose you can let the parents worry about it but you know, ' my feeling is, when you need day care, sometimes you go out and you get what ' s available because when you need it , you need it bad . If that facility, why don' t we impose that on people that are going to build in here rather than forcing parents of kids . . . ' Conrad : What ' s going to happen between the car door and the front of the day care center? ' Ellson : Unless it' s a high rise or something and you don ' t even know where it is and all these people are coming in and out . We don' t know. Sue from Building Block: They all have to be ground level . Conrad: You ' re kicking your kid out the car and saying, well hopefully you get there? Sue from Building Block : Also , all of our parents have to come in and sign their child in. • II Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 63 1 Conrad : We' re really not looking at your particular application. We' re conceptualizing here. Do we need more requirements is what we' re saying? I 'm trying to force us to think about this . I 'm not showing any sensitivity but others are I guess. I guess I 'm not sure, what' s going to happen? Tell me what ' s happening? Batzli : It may be after you drop the child off . Conrad : Because between the time that you drop the child off , didn ' t you walk them to the door? Emmings : Of course . Ladd , I always did but you know, using day care is a real emotional thing from the standpoint of there' s a lot of anxiety. First of all of leaving your most valuable possession with somebody else , I anybody else to start with. I know that the one that we used was in a free standing facility but it was in an apartment complex and that' s something that we talked about a lot. It was who has access? How easy will it be for the people who are running this facility to recognize people who should be on the premises and people who should not be on the premises . As a comfort factor , maybe like I say, maybe it' s purely an emotional kind of issue and maybe I over reacted, I don' t know. I don' t think so . Maybe the stuff is all designed in already. Ellson: Doesn' t the State say all these things right now? Sue from Building Block : I think they' re all covered through the State regulations. Scott Anderson : The facility is designed for security. . . Sue from Building Block: That' s a State requirement, signing in and signing out and asking for ID' s . On your State forms, you have to have who can pick up the child. Anybody different has to have a signed authorized slip from the parent and you have to be identified with a Minnesota drivers license or picture ID. State requirement. Roman Roos : . . . the ones that forth coming also , I think you will find that day care is one of the most state regulated businesses that you can possibly get into . I can' t begin to tell you what we' re going through with State inspections . . . Batzli : I have safety concerns again. The same ones that I had the first one and I don' t know what the State says they have to do or don' t have to do so I 'm counting on the staff that they did their homework and she came up with the 2 or 3 items that the State didn ' t cover . Headla : Did you look at the State regulations? Dacy: Yes. They are, in general, included in your packet. The standards that we are adopting as a part of this application is currently in the Ordinance also. 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' September 7, 1988 - Page 64 I Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-14 to amend Section 20-814 as follows : ' (14) State licensed day care centers as part of a multi-tenant building. ' Additionally, to add to Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers : 1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements . ' 2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas . 3 . Each center shall obtain applicable State , County and City licenses . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 17 , 1988 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried . TREE PROTECTION POLICIES. Erhart : If this is easy to do , I 'm all for it. I still have a little ' hard time understanding why, we basically handle Class 2 wetlands . If someone smells a Class 2 wetland out there , somehow we can ' t let him, can you prohibit him from wrecking it and I think we do it effectively. I ' can' t understand why we have been effective in preserving trees . If we have to do a whole great big overlay and make a drawing of all the trees in the City, that ' s fine. It ' s just a lot of work. I just have a hard ' time understanding why we have to do that. But if that' s what we have to do , that ' s fine. Batzli : It seems to me you could do aerial photos and do it really ' easily. Dacy: There ' s more implications in wetland areas as far as buildability and poorer soils and so forth. Trees add value to the lot and so on. Conrad : So our direction to staff is to proceed? Dacy: Yes, we' re going to take this onto the Council . Emmings : Along with the issue of blending . ' Batzli : And blending and without appearing to be trite on this tree c protection policy, I think it is something that we definitely need to do ' as well as the blending. I think we' re kind of giving it a little bit of short trip since it' s so late but I think it is very important . 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 7 , 1988 - Page 65 1 (7 Headla : On tree protection, on the land next door to me. I see this great big shovel going down to the lake. This is great big steel tracks and I don' t know how many tons . They just barely fit between two oaks . They' re hauling rock down there for the storm drainage. He comes back up I and gets another load of rock and goes down again. I don' t know if you' re familiar with those. You disturb those roots by driving a tractor past it a few times and disturb those roots , 3 to 4 years they' re gone. Now these two oaks are old oaks. I thought we were going to protect those trees . They' re going to be dead . I 'd bet a paycheck with anybody. Conrad: How would you stop that Dave? ' Headla : You don' t drive stuff down there. Conrad: But how do you want to do that? Larry can' t be out there ' telling them. Do we need an ordinance that says don' t drive within 10 feet of an oak? What do you want? Headla : They had a tree plan . That should be in that tree plan . Erhart: I think what we should do, we should pay special attention to oak. It ' s not just that but I mean , trimming oak trees in the spring is an absolute no no and if we' re going to go through this, we ought to incorporate some words in there. Conrad: Are we looking for guidelines? Headla : Yes . , Conrad : Which means enforcement but at least the guidelines should be there. So we should be chartering staff to be looking for guidelines that talk about construction in areas . That talk about simply operational procedures to preserve what ' s there. That makes sense . I don' t know that we can moniter it . There ' s no way. ' Headla: If we can improve the situation 30%, we' re way ahead. Batzli : And you' re going to go after the people that are flagrantly ' violating it. If one person drives over an oak tree root once, you ' re not going to catch them anyway. Erhart : A lot of people just don' t know about oak trees . They go into a I development and they go beat up the trees . If you scratch or break an oak tree in the spring . I/Conrad : A lot of people don' t know about the whole root system of some of those plants and they start planting dirt around it. The last item Barbara is you. I think for myself, as I told you on the phone , I 'm really sorry to lose you. Chanhassen is losing an outstanding planner . I ' ve just been so impressed with what has been done in the last year by so few people. I wish you the best. 1 Planning Commission Meeting ISeptember 7, 1988 - Page 66 Dacy: I think it ' s a fair statement to say that I ' ve really grown here at Chanhassen the last four years . I 'm definitely not the same person I was four years ago , both personally and professionally. I really ' appreciate the Commission' s patience Ladd. Some of you older members . If I can work with the same type of people up in Fridley, I ' ll just be ecstatic. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in 9 favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12: 10 a .m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 I • 1 1 • I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 • 1 1 .1 I 1 - ----TI 111.ior Iiimer I PARK AND RECREATION COMtMISSION UNIEDITIE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Carol Watson and Curt Robinson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch and Ed Hasek STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Watson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 9, 1988 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION-CARVER BEACH ROAD. Public Present : Name Address Robin Nordby 6801 Redwing Laura Bros 6771 Chaparral Joy Jarnvek 6780 Redwing Lane Cathy Clem 1011 Carver Beach Road Paul Kreuter 1090 Carver Beach Road Dave & Leneda Rahe 1021 Carver Beach Road Sietsema: This item, as you may recall , the 1988 Capital Improvement Program, which is the park development fund includes funds to construct off street trails or sidewalks along Carver Beach Road and Laredo Drive. I 'm going to treat these two separately and I ' ll go right to Carver Beach Road. The proposed trail along Carver Beach Road is approximately 1, 500 feet from Powers Blvd . to Carver Beach playground . The purpose of the trail is to keep the pedestrians that move along that street safe as the street is getting more and more busy as developments go in in that area . You may recall that over a year ago we had a petition to put a trail along that street by the people in that neighborhood . That petition was one of the things that pre-empted our developing the whole trail plan. Because we have seen that that is an unsafe area for children to be walking along the street, we went ahead and put that into our Capital Improvement Program for the 1988 year . I ' ve gone out to the site with the City Engineer and we looked at both sides of the street to see which would be the best side of the street to put the trai.l on. Due to topography mostly, we thought that if we ' re going to put it completely on one side, that the north side would be the better side . There are fewer obstructions there and the topo is flatter. Since that time I ' ve talked to some people in the area and the people that live on the south side of Carver Beach Road would like it to be on their side of the street and possibly cross at an intersection closer to the park. We can ' t have the trai.l going right up to the park on the south side because there's some ilk II Park and Rec Commission Meeting _ September 14, 1988 - Page 2 ' topo right across the street from the park that goes straight down. We would not be able to accomodate a trail . Because Carver Beach Road is the frontage road for many of the homes that are along that street , I 'm proposing that we put in a sidewalk rather than a bituminous trail because it looks nicer and it will add to the value of those homes rather than to detract as some people would think that a bituminous may detract from a home. It looks better and I don ' t think that the cost is going to be that much higher although if it is, I can bring that back to you. So my recommendation would be to put in a concrete sidewalk which would be 5 feet wide rather than the 6 foot bituminous. Some of the other things that we wanted to talk about before getting into discussion is the types of use that would be allowed on that trail and although we have a lot of work to do on an ordinance that ' s going to outline exactly what can be done, on this type of a trail pets would be allowed but on a leash only and no motorized vehicles would be allowed on sidewalks . Unless somebody else has some other concerns, I think that pretty much covers the things that have come up so far . Therefore, it is staff ' s recommendation to construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk to be constructed along Carver Beach Road and we can determine which side would be the best within the existing 40 foot right-of-way. Chairman Mady called the public hearing to order . Robin Nordby, 6801 Redwing Lane: My daughter is 7 years old and rides the II bus and I would- really like to have her go use that park because it ' s the park that she' s supposed to use. We proposed having a park in the neighborhood and that was voted down or we didn' t get enough support for a small park in the neighborhood. They said to use the Carver Beach Park but she ' s forbidden to ride a bike on Carver Beach because of the traffic . It' s just unreal . The cars just zoom through there and you practically have to dive in the ditch so I think I can say that everybody in the neighborhood is supporting this. Everybody is pushing for it heavily to have something so the kids can get over to the park and there ' s just tons of kids in the neighborhood. I think almost every house has small children in that age group. Laura Bros , 6771 Chaparral Lane : I was the originater of the petition to II get the trail made up to the park for a lot of the reasons that Robin just stated because it' s just very dangerous to walk on that road . It ' s very narrow and with the hills and we do have lots of problems with speeding . We' ve been in contact with the Public Safety Department and haven' t gotten a whole lot of satisfaction from them either with controlling speed on that road so we definitely do not want our children on Carver Beach. One of the things that Lori brought up and you talked about it before was , instead of running it all the way up the north side, we' d like part of it on the south side because we' re feeding off of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods are off on the south side so we would rather have it go part - of the way. The way I had set it up originally on the petition was to have it cross at Redwing Lane with the useage of stop signs . I felt that this would combat two problems with one stroke. By putting a stop sign in at Redwing at the base of the hill so the cars coming down over the hill have to stop anyway so that will control the speed on Carver Beach Road and provide the safe crossing for our children. Because of the lay of the II ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 September 14 , 1988 - Page 3 IIland , that pretty much needs to go up the north side . I agree with Lori on that but I 'd like to see it from Powers Blvd. to Redwing Lane go on the II south side and then cross over with a crosswalk and stop signs . Mady: One thing I 'd like to address , if possible, is if you have a comment on whether we should use concrete or bituminous blacktop, we 'd Ialso like that brought up. Paul Kreuter , 1090 Carver Beach Road : As much as a trail on the north I side of the road all the way to Powers would serve my family and I the most , I agree with the consensus so far simply because the number of children that live on the south side is so great and I think it would be a serious safety problem for trying to get the kids from the south side of I Carver Beach over to the trail . Whatever will last is the best use as far as material goes . I Laura Bros : I think we all support the sidewalk. I don ' t have a problem. I think a sidewalk would look better , much better than tar. Mady: The only concerns we would probably have would be cost and we can Iwork on that. Laura Bros : How about the stop sign issue? Is that going to be a Iproblem? Mady: That ' s something we' ll discuss . It ' s not something we have really I a whole lot of say on but that will handled by the City Council . We can make a recommendation to them. Sietsema : If I could just make a comment . I did talk to Jim Chaffee 1 about the request for the stop sign along Carver Beach Road and what he has indicated is that he can ' t move on anything until he gets the request in writing. I don' t know if you 've got written to him what the request I is , but he can ' t take the item to the Public Safety Commission until he has the request in writing. So that ' s your first step. We can make a recommendation that a crosswalk go at a certain spot where we ' re switching I sides and we can recommend that the sidewalk go in at that point too. But whether there ' s a stop sign there is an engineering decision although Public Safety will recommend on it too. The other thing is that, with the crosswalk and the trail going in, we ' ll have a much greater chance of 1 getting the stop sign. If you just put a stop sign up to slow traffic , MnDot will not let you . That ' s not the purpose of a stop sign to just simply slow traffic. 'You ' re supposed to use other things to do that but II if there ' s a crosswalk there , it makes more sense . That would give a good reason why there should be a stop sign there. With the trail and the crosswalk, you might have a better chance of getting it . I Laura Bros : Another point I wanted to make too was that the bus stop for that area is right on Redwing and Carver Beach Road. The children stand on that corner for a bus stop so therefore, any children walking down, if I they should from the other side of the street , a couple of them might go to another district but if they have to cross the street , they could cross and they could walk down the sidewalk, cross at the crosswalk at Carver II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 4 I Beach and then stand at the bus stop. , Boyt : We' re going to run into this again out on Minnewashta with the trail crossing sides of the street. I think stop signs are a good answer to that problem. Schroers : Currently there is a petition circulating in the neighborhood right now for a stop sign on Redwing anyway. There are several signatures on that petition . Robin Norby: Also, we'd like a safety sign that says Children Playing. Notifying that there is a park there so people that don' t know. Boyt moved, Robinson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Boyt : One of the things we haven ' t discussed is winter maintenance for the trails. That was something we need to discuss tonight. Mady: I 'd like to discuss winter maintenance once we get done with both items . Boyt : I think most of the people know who ' s going to pay for the trail . That the whole city pays for it and it ' s not assessed to each individual homeowner . There have been questions about that with Laredo . The City pays for it. Mady: To clarify that even further . The money that the Park and Recreation Commission and Park and Recreation Department spends for capital improvements and that ' s building totlot equipment , putting in ball II diamonds, land acquisition, minor amounts of land , comes directly out of what is known as park dedication fees . Anytime a developer comes in and builds a home in the City of Chanhassen, they are assessed a fee of $425. 00 which goes directly into a park dedication fund . They have the option, if it' s a large development, I guess it' s at our discretion , requesting the land dedication instead of the dollars but it always works out to equal . Either it ' s $425. 00 for land or $425. 00 so that ' s the only money we use for building parks and building trails . That ' s where our money comes from. We do not receive any money out of the City' s operating budget for building park items which is trails and ballfields and totlot equipment. Boyt : I 'm in support of the sidewalk and I 'd like to see the concrete sidewalk switching sides of the road with stop signs . Watson : . . .because it doesn ' t really make any difference in the City here specifically. If they want it on the south and going to the north and they want a stop sign. • Robinson: I agree. ' Schroers : I agree . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 5 Mady: We ' re all in agreement . We don' t have a whole lot of discussion Y g on on it. We' re all in pretty much agreement that the trail needs to be placed on the south side of Carver Beach Road from Powers to Redwing , have a crosswalk installed and then the trail continue onto the park on the north side of Carver Beach Road . I would guess they' re going to make a ' recommendation to the Public Safety Commission that we use a stop sign situation be installed at that location . I think a motion ' s in order . Boyt: So moved. Watson : Second . ' Mady: Just for the benefit of the public , the motion on the floor is to build a trail along . . . Boyt : A 5 foot concrete sidewalk constructed along the south side of Carver Beach Road from Powers Blvd . to Redwing, a crosswalk and then the sidewalk would continue on the north side to the park with stop signs . Paul Kreuter : Could you add , with appropriate safety signs . Mady: In addition to the Public Safety Commission to install those . ' Boyt: Have you gone to the Public Safety Commission with this? ' Laura Bros : We just started a petition for the south side for safety signs . Watson : I think it ' s well that the trail crossing and our engineer can. . . ' especially the bus stop and the whole thing . . . . should make a real good case for putting a stop sign there . ' Boyt moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to install a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along the south side of ' Carver Beach Road from Powers Blvd. to Redwing Lane, a crosswalk and then continue the sidewalk on the north side of Carver Beach Road to Carver Beach Playground and to have safety crossing signs and stop signs . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Mady: The motion now goes to the City Council with our recommendation and they' ll decide whether or not it will be built . ' Si_etsema : Actually, what will happen is that on the 26th I will hand this recommendation over to the Engineer . It ' s been approved by the City Council because it was approved in our budget so they will authorize preparation of plans and specs on the 26th. Those plans and specs will come back and they' ll have to approve those and authorize advertisement of bids . We' ll have to advertise for bids for 21 days. They' ll come back in ' November to accept the bid . It probably will not be, depending on what kind of winter it is, if they can still do construction, they will start it. Otherwise , it will be the first thing on the agenda next spring . ' I Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 6 ' PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION LAREDO DRIVE. ' Public Present : Name Address Sarah Unger 7406 Laredo Drive Pat & Mona Kerber 7489 Saratoga Circle Sunil Chojar 7480 Long View Circle Richard Konerza 7461 Long View Circle Bruce Gamun 7405 Laredo Drive Earl H. Mertz 7510 Laredo Drive Greg Eidam 501 Laredo Lane Tom Kottke 518 Laredo Lane Kathy Hagedorn 516 Laredo Lane Ken Groen 7329 Frontier Trail Charles Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive Barb Edeskuty 406 Cimarron Circle Leah Lucas 410 Cimarron David & Trudy Schranck 506 Laredo Drive Larry Beck 7401 Laredo Drive Mary Lucas 410 Cimarron Circle Linda Mady 7338 Frontier Trail 1 Sietsema : The proposed sidewalk, trail along Laredo Drive is roughly 2, 500 feet from Frontier Trail to the Chanhassen Elementary. The reason it doesn ' t go , we' re not proposing it to go all the way to West 78th Street is because it ' s already in place to the Fire Station and HRA with the redevelopment , part of downtown redevelopment will be putting it in along the school and hooking into the trails that up by the school that were just recently installed . The purpose of this trail is again to move people along Laredo Drive in a safe manner . The trails will be for pedestrians . For bicycles but not motorized vehicles . Staff is proposing that we put in a 5 foot concrete sidewalk rather than the bituminous for the same reasons as we had for the Carver Beach Road . The existing right- of-way does allow for that type of construction. Again, City Engineer Gary Warren and I went out to the site and looked at it and felt that the west side of Laredo Drive would be the appropriate side to have the trail on because we already have a section in place there and the topography and obstructions were less on that side as well . Again, this is not an assessed project . This is an already funded project that comes out of already budgeted money. Therefore, it is my recommendation that a 5 foot concrete sidewalk be constructed along the west side of Laredo Drive within the existing 60 foot right-of-way. Mady: To clarify right-of-way questions , Laredo has a 60 foot road right-of-way and the street right now is 25 so we have approximately 16 feet on both sides of the street there. I think at this time we ' ll call the public hearing to order on Laredo Drive trail and we' ll handle this basically the same as we handled the previous one . ' 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14, 1988 - Page 7 Sarah Unger , 7406 Laredo : I live right on the curve of Laredo . I see 100 people use that road walking and riding and doing all that. I 'm amazed that nobody' s been hurt because that curve is so , you know the peitions . . . ' so I 'm in support of the trail . I 'm also in support that it ' s a 5 foot cement whatever just because it will tie in the main residential neighborhood with the City and I think it is real important to the value ' of our homes as well as tying into the city. So I think it' s real important. . . Leah Lucas : I live on Laredo and Cimarron Circle. I would be in support of a trail because all those children are required to walk to school and they walk in the road . It' s dangerous for the children and it ' s hazardous for the driver to have kids walking the streets . In the winter it ' s even ' worst because the snow is banked up on each side. The kids are walking on the banks, slipping in the road . I think we need the trail . ' Boyt : You like the sidewalk on the west side? Leah Lucas: The west side is appropriate because . . . Barb Edeskuty, 406 Cimarron Circle : I 'm also in favor of the sidewalk going on the west side. We' ve all got kids that have to walk to school and I don ' t feel the road is a safe place to walk. Again , especially in ' the winter time and the sidewalk as opposed to the tar trail just because of the looks . It would be nice to blend into the city. ' Bruce Gamun: I 'm a 16 year resident of 7405 Laredo Drive. I have no objections whatsoever to the sidewalk preferably being concrete . I just have some questions. I understand it' s funded. I do have the questions of how that will be maintained because concrete obviously will stand up ' better than the asphalt. The second question would be, what do you do with the snow on it in the wintertime and who ' s responsible for it and how can you use it in the wintertime? I think you said you' re going to ' address that in a vote but I would think they'd want to know, like Carver Beach people, they didn ' t comment and I certainly would like to know how we' re going to maintain it because if the property owners maybe today if ' it were there, the City would take care of it. Maybe tomorrow the homeowner would have to take care of it. It wouldn ' t affect me on my side, it would still be a. concern of mine and my neighbors I 'm sure, it' s a question that should be addressed . Larry Beck, 7402 Laredo Drive: I 'm definitely in favor of the sidewalk. Not the asphalt but th'e concrete. I guess the biggest question I had was ' I ' ve got about 250 foot of frontage so I 'm concerned about the maintenance in the winter . I know I 'm not going to be able to take care of that snow so that ' s a real concern of mine . Otherwise I think it ' s fine . Dick Konerza, Long View Circle and Laredo : My question is , what will be the responsibility of the homeowner , financially, upkeep and all of that from now until after it' s not being used? Before I favor anything, I 'd like to know what is our responsibility to that walkway? Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 8 ' Earl Mertz, 7510 Laredo Drive: I 'm in favor of the concrete bit. I just II wonder who how far is it from the roadway? I 'm concerned about my front yard getting hacked up and some trees that are probably in the way and how far would this be in from the present road? Are we leaving a boulevard here are we or several feet in the sidewalk and then the rest of my yard? I 'm concerned about how it hack up my property. Mady: We ' ll discuss that with the Commission presentation . You ' ll have an opportunity at that time, if you don' t get the response you' re looking for , to ask another question . Mona Kerber : My name is Mona Kerber and my husband Patrick Kerber . My husband was up here and has gotten complete information. I don' t know if we oppose or I 'm in favor of it. Our question is also the maintenance of it. Who ' s responsible because our driveway goes out into Saratoga Circle . We do not use the Laredo frontage and we also have a hill that has been landscaped. My husband came to the Village and got complete permission to I landscape it. Put the timbers in. What are you going to do with the hill and the circle there? The curve around it, I agree it' s a very hazardous corner but what are you going to do with our hill? Who ' s going to , are I you going to take it out? Are you going to put it back? Are you going to landscape it and John Mertz lives next door to us , they did not get a letter in regards to this. We spoke with him tonight and I 'm speaking on his behalf also . Part of the hill where we have the disconnecting with the timbers is part of his property now which means you ' re going to be hacking that off . We' d like to know how much we' re going to lose of our hill? How much is he going to lose? Who' s going to maintain it? Who ' s going to pick the garbage up? Right now we clean the garbage on Laredo . We pick up pop cans, school papers , everything on this street now and we have a walkway down there? Is the Village going to maintain that? The walkway is not that well maintained. We maintain it. Another question ' is , you ' re going to plow snow there . Where is the snow going to go when we have this large bank? Are we going to have to shovel the snow up on top of our hill or what do you do with it? We have a problem already down I there with the snow on the corner. If it would be, we' re in favor of the cement . We agree with the safety part of it but we also are concerned about our property and what are you going to do with our land and our lot? How far back are you going to go? Resident: Let me make one more comment and then I 'm really done. What I 'm hearing is that the biggest concern is maintenance . I personally don ' t have a problem with maintaining the sidewalk but that 's because I have a small frontage.' I might make a suggestion that the City' s going to have to maintain the sidewalks within the City which extends down to the Fire Department and the school so the cost of maintaining the rest of the sidewalk down Laredo should be that much and since the use is really going to be for the public school and the children , that maybe you could , you know. . . ' Pat Kerber , 7489 Saratoga Circle : The sidewalk is fine but I think we should have got together first was where it was going to be. How much II room it was going to take up. Who ' s going to maintain it and this before we get involved with do we want it or not. That seems to be everybody' s II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14, 1988 - Page 9 ' concern . Thank you . Sunil Chojar , 7480 Long View Circle : I have basically the same concern as ' before we started this debate. The lady mentioned that we don' t have room on the east side of the road to put a sidewalk and it seems . . . ' (There was a break in the tape at this point in the meeting . ) Mady: . . .other trails such as the Pond Park trail that ' s adjacent to ' Kerber ' s property, there' s not a lot of reason to plow that in the winter possibly and maybe we want to use some of those trails that we' re proposing as cross country ski trails , things like that so not all of them are probably going to be plowed during the winter . We' ll decide on a one ' to one basis. I think we need to review each trail that comes in. It' s been our intention all along that once we have a trail system started , that we will acquire a Cushman type of vehicle and have a park maintenance ' person traveling the trail system to pick up, sweep up the loose sand , glass and large trash that exists in there but it' s still going to be the homeowner ' s responsibly to pick up the few pieces of paper that fly into their yard. I don' t anticipate the City having someone driving that trail ' everyday to pick that stuff up. I think there ' s concern on how wide the boulevard ' s going to be. If we put the trail right next to the street or we put it the full 16 feet away from the street . -I don ' t believe we ' re ' going to put it adjacent to the street unless we absolutely have no other choice . If there is a fire hydrant or a large tree and telephone boxes in the way and we have to go next to the street, we will but we want to keep ' it away from the street . That doesn ' t mean we have to take the whole 16 feet either . I belive a 3 to 4 foot cushion is reasonable. It keeps the kids and the street traffic separate. It also allows for some piling of snow in small snow storms . Now obviously, usually in the winter we have a ' lot of snow here so there are going to be winters or probably just about every winter where we' re going to have to get a front end loader or a large snow blower up there to pull that snow away from the hills if we ' don' t have anyplace else to push it. What I 'm hearing from the Park and Rec Commission is that that ' s what we want to see done . We do have park maintenance people on staff and I think that ' s what their function should ' be in the winter . First on these trails and then to help out with the street maintenance crew with the rest of the streets after that and then finally the ice rinks . I believe someone raised the question about financial responsibility. I think that might also come into play with the ' liability. Who ' s responsible for things on the streets? I don ' t have an answer to that but there is a case law on that. The City would not have any way of changi.ng. . .exist with sidewalk liability. If there ' s a person ' that ' s injured on a sidewalk, and I know there' s case law on that on what happens . I don' t have an answer to that , sorry. Resident: What about if it' s in your right-of-way and not on our ' property? Mady: I don ' t know that . That ' s something that I would at least ask and ' get a clarification from our Attorney Roger Knutson when it goes to the Council . II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 10 ' Sietsema : I talked to Roger about this in the past and his opinion is that, if someone gets hurt on the sidewalk, they can sue anybody. They can sue you, if it' s in your yard or they can sue the City or they could sue both but generally the courts have been going, unless you have left something out there dangerous or there was something very neglectful , they have been going in favor of that you walk the trails at your own risk. You talk some of the repsonsibility for being out and about , being able to I walk upon yourself and that ' s generally what the courts have gone with so he doesn ' t see that as a big liability problem for either the City or the people who are going to have the trails in front of their house . Mona Kerber : I have a question on that liability. Little kids like to walk on the retaining wall up there. What happens if those kids are walking the retaining wall , fall and hit their heads on the sidewalk? Are I we responsible for those kids? Mady: It ' s the same type of situation of just walking the sidewalk. II Unless your retaining wall was in any way unsafe , grossly did it show that you were negligent for some reason , that child is still operating under their own discretion and you can' t prevent someone, unless you ' re out there beating them every time they come near so , if you get to . . .make sure your property is as safe as it can be but not to. . . Each individual still has to act in a safe way and unless they can show that you were negligent , you really don' t have any financial responsibility I don' t see. ' Mona Kerber : The reason why, I was just going to give you an example . We had creosoled our wall to keep it . The children at the bus stop were told , don ' t sit on the wall and don ' t play on the wall . It ' s been creosoled. One mother called me at night and demanded that we pay for her child ' s brand new pair of pants because she sat on our wall . We did not ask her so now wouldn ' t she be a little hasty if her kid falls off your wall and hits their head on the sidewalk? . . . I told her to keep her kid off from our property. Mady: It ' s the same situation when they come and you ' re painting your ' house, either that or whatever , you can do everything you want and you still can ' t prevent kids from doing some things . We' ll try to be reasonable. Resident : Has the Council already approved this? Mady: The Council approved our budget and this is a portion of our budget. However , the Council still has to review the plans and specifications and approve the bid letting process . Once the bids are let , they have to review the bids and approve the whole bid . Resident: Something just occurred to me, on the S kind of curve on Laredo , it ' s a speedway right now. If you put sidewalks , kids do not walk on sidewalks. I didn ' t when I was a kid. You probably didn ' t when you were a kid . Drivers are going to think they' re on the sidewalk and it' s going to be even worse in all probability as a traffic pattern. They' re not going to expect kids and kids on bicycles especially hate to ride on sidewalks . That should be addressed and taken into consideration Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 11 because it' s bad right now. I think that might just make it worse . Mady: I can see where you' re coming from, I have a real problem with that . We can ' t control 100% of the kids but if we do nothing on that road , we ' re as much as offering a couple of child ' s life up right now. It ' s a very dangerous street . It has been for a lot of years . We have an ' opportunity to change that right now. That' s why the Commission has been looking at this item. Resident : That was one of the things that ' s been ignored . I 've got no objection to it. My kids are all raised. They were all raised on this street . Of course, it wasn ' t quite as busy but it ' s always been a raceway. Resident : Again , that ' s another one of the problems we have in the City. It' s been addressed recently in the paper that we do have some areas of the City, and it' s not just Carver Beach Road and Laredo where there is a ' lot of fast traffic. I know the Public Safety Commission is looking at that trying to find a solution . The obvious solution is radar detection ' and speeding tickets but the cops can' t be in one spot all the time. Hopefully, they' re going to find a solution to that . By getting as many kids as we can off the road, we ' re lessening the opportunity for a child to be hit and that ' s what we ' re trying to do is get as many kids off the ' street as we can. Any other comments? I think we handled all your questions . I don' t see one here that was asked that we haven ' t discussed . A motion would be in order . ' Schroers : I will move that we accept staff ' s recommendation to construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Laredo Drive within the existing right-of-way to accomodate the needs of the residents on the west side of Laredo. Boyt : Second . Schroers moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission ' recommend to construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Laredo Drive within the existing right-of-way to accomodate the needs of the residents on the west side of Laredo. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Mady: We still need to make a motion concerning snow removal . We need to handle that motion to the Council . I ' ll move that the City be responsible ' for removal of snow on the Laredo and Carver Beach trails and that it be done in a timely fashion so the kids do have a method of getting to school in the morning without traveling in the streets . ' Boyt: Second . Robinson: Is that just on Laredo and Carver? ' Watson: Do we have other trails that maybe should? Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 12 I Robinson : Yes , there ' s a stretch between Great Plains Blvd . and West 78th II Street. Great Plains and Erie Avenue. I walk it every morning . The City plows it with some type of a front end loader I believe . Not right away but that' s another stretch that I 'd like to see included in that. That' s II about the only one I can think of . Boyt : We have a new trail on Kerber Blvd . that' s directing children . I Sietsema: Let' s just do it on all trails . Watson: Yes , I think we' d better stick to all trails otherwise we are II going to leave something out. Boyt : We can always exempt one later . I Mady: Okay, I 'd like to amend my motion to recommend to City Council to direct City Staff to plow all existing trails as early as possible in the II morning and that we handle exceptions to that on an exception basis. We will be making motions in the future on exceptions to that rule . Schroers : Just as a point of interest, I think that we want to recognize ' that the City, the street department ' s first obligation naturally is going to be to get the streets cleared and I have to believe that the trails are going to be secondary so I don' t think it' s reasonable to look out your II window first thing after a snow and expect the sidewalk to be cleaned. It may take a while before they get to it but they will get to it . Boyt: I think we need to put paved trails so we don' t do Chan Pond Park. II Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission I recommend that the City be responsible for the snow removal on all paved city trails as soon as possible in the morning and the Park and Recreation Commission will handle exceptions at a later date. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Boyt : I have another trail related item. We talked about pets being on I the trails and at one point we talked about recommending a pooper scooper ordinance and I 'd like some discussion on that . Resident: I think we can be expected to pick up pop cans and paper but II not other . . . Sietsema : We did discuss that at one meeting and I do have an ordinance II that 's being worked on right now and that will be coming back to you . Mady: We did discuss at an earlier meeting an ordinance concerning pets II in the city parks and the trailway system is a city park system. Right now the way the ordinance reads right now, what' s on the books , pets are just simply not allowed in the city parks . That would prevent anyone from I walking their dog on the city trail . Because of that , which doesn ' t make sense in my opinion. You've got to walk your dog someplace. We have made II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 13 a recommendation to the Council that the ordinance be redrafted to allow pets to be allowed on the trail system as long as they' re restrained by a leash of the required leash length, whatever that is by ordinance and that they do have on their person the proper receptacle for picking up the droppings of their pet. That item has gone to Council . I don' t believe they have acted on it yet . Resident : If you get that through, I ' ll give you a medal . Mady: I hope we answered all your concerns. I really appreciate the turnout tonight . When it goes to Council , I ask that you attend the Council meeting because it ' s important to show up and give your support again . It' s very important for the safety of our children but also for the safety of everyone else. Chanhassen is a very mobile community in that our residents do a lot of walking . There are a lot of runners . A lot of walkers on the trail system. Boyt : The trail on Kerber Blvd . was put in last week and there are people out there . REQUEST TO WAIVE TRAIL DEDICATION FEES , GARY BROWN. Mady: Do you have anything to add to your staff report? Sietsema : No . Basically what I ' ve written here is that a trail fee applies to the total acreage of a commercial development and therefore, we don ' t break it down to building permit like we do on a subdivision . When a building permit came in, even though the development is already started , I charged the total trail dedication fee which was $1, 165. 00 I believe. Mr . Brown didn' t feel that that was fair . That he had to pay for this development when he had already started . Mady: Did you talk to Roger on this? Sietsema : Yes . Everything I ' ve said in the memo was a reflection of what Roger had told me. Watson : We've done this before and we have to be very careful about setting precedence without thinking . We don' t split it out by the number of buildings on a site . It doesn ' t have anything to do with that . That could come to the point of saving their own. . . Sietsema : What we have done in the past and what we did do for Gary Brown, for this very development is , he had originally had, I think it was like a 14 acre parcel of which he was only developing 3 acres . He didn' t feel that he should have to pay for the park dedication fees for the total 14 so we broke it down , looked at the entire piece. What are you grading? What part are you developing and that turned out to be 3 some acres and we postponed the payment of the fees for the rest of it until he develops the rest of it. So we did phase his park dedication fees but the trail dedication fees are what is outstanding . 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 14 1 Schroers : And the trail dedication covers the entire 14 acres? ' Sietsema : No, that' s just these 3 acres . Schroers : Have we had any similar situations with someone else? Where they have started and then we've imposed the fee on them? Sietsema: Not in a commercial situation but our park dedication fee was put into place well after many subdivisions had gone in back in the early 80 ' s. Every building permit that came in after that time, we applied to those subdivisions regardless if their plat was approved before the park dedication fee was in place or not . Anything that came in from that point on was responsible to pay park dedication fees . It' s the same case with the trail dedication fees . He' s developing a piece of property and it' s 3 acres in size and therefore he' s responsible for the trail dedication fees for those 3 acres . I 'm not sure what the acreage is but whatever it is . , Mady: If we had a developer , commercial developer come in and build a large warehouse say and he started his project prior to our trail dedication fee , he put in a 100, 000 square foot building . Then a year later he decided that he would like to have his trucks maintained on the site so he decides to build a 5 , 000 square foot building . How do we assess the fee? 1 Sietsema: If he had already paid the fee , because the commercial is not done by lots like the residential , when he first came in for his building permit , he was charged for the total acreage. Anything he builds on later , he isn' t charged park or trail fees because he ' s already met his requirements for that acreage. Mady: Then how is this different? Gary' s already started his project on the whole acreage. Sietsema: He has not met his trail dedication fee requirements . Mady: There wasn' t one when he took his first permit out. Sietsema : But there is now and he' s still developing that project . He was not completed . Mady: But that ' s the same situation we' re in with this hypothetical case where the person has already started and has a building going up and decided they wanted to put another building on , how do we handle that? Sietsema: If he' s already met the requirements , then he doesn' t have to ! pay again because it' s not per building permit that we charge on the — commercial . We charge $1,050. 00 per acre that' s payable the first time that you build . Mady: His first permit has already gone out? Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14, 1988 - Page 15 Sietsema : His first permit , he was charged for that on his first permit . If he was not charged on his first permit, he would be responsible for paying for the park and trail dedication fees on that property. Mady: But see in his first permit there wasn' t one. I 'm not real clear on this whole thing . That ' s why I 'm trying to get discussion out on it. One part of me says that he should pay the whole thing because it ' s new but the other part of me says that he' s already started on it and it' s like any other developer out there. In a neighborhood situation it ' s real simple. It' s cut and dry because there ' s one permit per house . It' s real easy but on this situation, on a commercial development, we may see this , since there is a lot of commercial development taking place and it' s been in the ground for a little while other things are coming to it , we will probably see this again and we need to think it through real well as to whether or not, if the first permit has been let on it and there wasn ' t a trail fee involved , if a subsequent permit comes in , why should the permiting person have to pay the entire fee for the entire development? Sietsema : If he had subdivided his 3 acres , then he would only be responsible for the building permits that he ' s coming in but he' s developing the piece as one whole piece . Therefore , he ' s responsible for the total fees of that one whole piece. When he comes in on the rest of it, because we waived the park fees before or postponed the payment of park fees on their other 11 acres , we would follow suit with the trail dedication fees so when he comes in with the development plan to develop the remaining of his property, he will be responsible for the park and trail dedication fees of that . But within this 3 , I think it' s 3 acres , he' s responsible to pay for the total thing unless he were to subdivide that out . Mady: I 'm looking to be reasonable on this thing . Watson: Perhaps it should be kind of prorated based on what portion is already developed as opposed to the portion that is now being developed? Mady: I was at the Council meeting when this came up and it was tabled. Just the brief comments that were made at that time, I got the impression from the Council that they were looking for a reasonable situation. What can we reasonably expect and since a fourth of the development has already occurred, I 'm thinking maybe a quarter of the payment be waived . Watson : That ' s what I was leading to . Prorate it based on what ' s already been done that had nothing to do with park dedication fees because we didn ' t have one . Now we can develop another part , same 3 acre tract but another portion of that, that you would just charge a trail dedication fee against the new development . Not go back and pick up the old one . Mady: I 'm looking at this also, on new residential development and you build your home on it and you decide you want to put a garage on it, attach a garage and you have a big enough parcel , would you then come in for a new permit because you have to have a permit . Would you then get hit with the trail fee? I don ' t see the difference. 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 16 ' Sietsema: Yes . Yes you would . If the trail dedication fee was not paid II in the original building , then it would, as I understand it . Schroers : I recognize the difference in that , I can understand Mr . ' Brown' s point of view. When he originally decided to develop this property, there was no trail fee at that time, is that correct? Sietsema: Right. Schroers : Okay, so that wasn' t in his plans at all . He didn' t account for that in his expenses that he would occur while developing so he developed the first portion of it. Then when he went on to develop the second part of it, the trail fee had been initiated. He was asked to pay trail fees for everything . For the entire amount that he proposed to develop. It would seem logical to me that since there was no trail fee in existence when he first began his project , that that portion of the project would be deleted or omitted from having to pay the trail fee . Watson: This is his third building . Were there 3 phases to this project? Four? How many? Sietsema: He' s got 8 buildings I think that he' s going to put on there. Watson: Eight buildings that he' s going to put on these 3 acres? So he' s II a quarter of the way into building? Sietsema: And this is not a fee I would charge on the remaining . I wouldn' t charge this again the next permit that comes in for his fourth building. This is a one time fee for that 3 acre lot. Boyt : When someone comes in from Chaparral and wants to build a deck, are they paying the trail fee when they take out their permit to build a deck? Siestema: I ' ll have to check into that . , Mady: What I 'd like to see is to have these sort of things brought to Roger . I ' ll support just about anything Roger says . Sietsema : This is what Roger told me. I 'm telling you want Roger said . Mady: I want to make sure he hears our Side because there may be something he didn' t think of . If it ' s up to our discretion as to whether or not we have some latitude, then we need to discuss and say how we want to do it. If there something clear cut on there, I want to make sure that — we do whatever we have to . Watson: What you ' re saying is , do we really have a decision to make or — don' t we? Mady: I think what we need to do is make a decision based on the assumption that we have a decision to make. Then if Roger says no . . . I Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' September 14 , 1988 - Page 17 rSietsema: This is what Roger told me is that the total of the acreage would , he would still owe the trail fee on that total acreage. Now if you wanted to deviate from that , that would be your choice but keep in mind I 1 think that that would be setting a precedence. Mady: I want to make sure we understand . I guess part of when we make a ' motion on this , is I want to make sure we go back to Roger and ask him that decision . What if for a person building a garage, do they now pay for the trail fee? Schroers : I also think that I personally would rather have Gary Brown here to hear his point of view and side of this also before. ' Sietsema : He was invited to the meeting . Mady: We can' t hold up a decision because he chose not to be here. Watson : Basically what we need to decide is whether we feel the entire trail fee is due on this property or if three-quarters of the trail fee is due on this property. Mady: What we should reasonably be doing . Watson: If a quarter of his project is done , the only real latitude we have is to omit -one-quarter of it . It seems to me that the portion that' s not done would still logically fall into that category. If you ' re going ' to build a garage and you get the trail fee , it sure seems to me that three-quarters. If one-quarter of the project is already finished, that' s really questionable. ' Mady: I guess I don ' t have a problem with staff ' s recommendation if we have the ability to do that. I don' t feel real comfortable yet on what our legal actions . When I attended the first council meeting on this , I ' was thinking now, what are we trying to do here? This should be pretty cut and dry. He ' s taking a permit out , he has to cover the fees . My gut feeling is , if that what' s our ordinance is , that' s what we do. I don ' t like exceptions . Boyt: That' s what it says in here. Mady: I ' ll support that as long as that' s what we can do. Sietsema : I wouldn' t lie to you Jim. We talked about the different scenarios . Watson : I think Roger probably thought of it and I think we just have to decide. That' s the ordinance and that ' s the way the ordinance reads. I don' t feel that we have a lot of latitude . Robinson: I think there is some room for reasonableness and I liked the scenario that Larry painted . He did not realize there were any trail dedication fees and he did not have that in his plans when he went ahead with the first building . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 18 1 I Mady moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to support the ordinance and to accept the City Attorney' s opinion . If ordinance allows latitude , then deduct 25% off . In not , require Gary Brown to pay the full amount. Mady voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition . The motion failed . Mady moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on this item has been referred to the City Attorney for his opinion ' regarding the previous discussion. All voted in favor of tabling the item and the motion carried . REVIEW PARK DEDICATION, COUNTRY OAKS . Sietsema : As you may recall , we reviewed the site plan proposed for Country Oaks at our last meeting. The Park and Recreation Commission had a lot of discussion about requiring two lots of the development to meet park needs within that development. That that development would be creating the need and asked staff to work with the developer to identify two lots that would favorably be along the southern border so that when the area to the south develops , we could acquire additional property there. I did talk to Mr . Johnson. He' s not in favor of dedicating two lots because it - is such a small development that he feels that there would be a definite economical impact on the development. One of the other things that the Park and Recreation Commission discussed was providing private parkland or open space and he pointed out that there is a beachlot on Lake Minnewashta which will serve this area . There' s 31, 080 square feet within this beachlot and I believe it' s 150 feet of lakeshore. He feels that that will meet the park needs of this area . , Boyt: Is it adjacent to the property? Sietsema: No . ' Schroers : It would be across the frontage road . Dave Johnson: It' s across Lake Minnewashta . It' s the Pleasant Acres . Schroers : Is that where that plane used- to be moored down there? I Jo Ann Hallgren: He' s further north then where the plane used to be . Schroers : And it' s a pretty steep hill going down to the lake there . 1 Then is there a flat recreation area down by the lake? Is there enough room to set up a volleyball net or something on the flat area down there , would you say? Dave Johnson : It depends on how many cars and stuff you' ve got down there too because they park, depending upon how many people are coming down II there, they park all over the place. My guess is that it would hold about 10 or 12 cars and room for the people who came in them to be down there. 1 . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 19 If it wasn ' t a full day and you didn ' t have 10 or 12 cars there , there'd be plenty of room to play volleyball . Boyt : How many units have access to this beachlot right now? Dave Johnson: There ' s a deeded access to that lot that was given to quite a few acres of land , some of which has been developed . It ' s my understanding that there ' s about 60 families there now. I would add, this is a 27 lot subdivision but I will add 26 families because there ' s a house already on this property that will be on one of those lots. There' s been some resistence from the people, which is probably what you' re referring to , from the people up there in the Homeowner' s Association but I guess everyone figures when they get there first , it' s our period . That land ' was deeded , has deeded right from the beginning of the whole thing and the people who got there first don ' t have any more or any less rights than the people who get there last. For some reason they have chosen, they didn' t ' come to my neighborhood meeting that I held . They didn' t call at my invitation on the letters that I sent announcing the neighborhood meeting . I gave them my home phone number and my office phone number and I don' t think I gave them my car phone but I made it plenty easy for them to do that . Even after the meeting , no one called . They were fairly well represented at the Planning Commission meeting but even since then when it was pointed out to them that it had been researched by the City' s Attorney and those rights go with the land, no one has called me. I haven' t called them because I wanted to see what transpired here. I figure it' s not my position to be going and negotiating and getting something that I have a right to . Watson : Is there any particular reason why people park down there? ' Mady: They don' t have a place to park? Schroers : You can ' t park along Minnewashta Parkway. ' Watson: And they have a driveway? Dave Johnson : No more than they have to . It ' s pretty close . Watson: If you took the 10 to 12 cars out of there, you have a significant more park to make use of rather than parking. Schroers : There are a lot of arguments there. Do you expect us to carry our coolers and everything down this steep hill? Dave Johnson: Additionally, some of the people who have rights there are on the other side of TH 7. On Pipe Wood Curve and so on. Watson: So they are quite a distance away? Dave Johnson: Some of them are quite a distance away. If you covered the land on both sides , they owned, I don' t remember the exact figure but something in excess of 100 acres at one time and I presume all of that got deeded lake rights or most of it . I 'm not sure but it' s certainly 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 20 I scattered out . I know I was sending letters to people on the other side of TH 7 and I know Pipe Wood Curve. I know that area is , it ' s Pleasant Acres 2nd or 3rd or something over there and all of Pleasant Acres has those rights. Mady: I think we recognize the need for parkland on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. I Watson : I would have to agree with him, taking 2 acres out of a 10 acre parcel . Sietsema : Not 2 acres , 2 lots . Watson: How much area is 2 lots? , Dave Johnson : It was a little less than an acre . Sietsema : It was more than three-quarters of an acre I think. Roughly ' three-quarters of an acre. Dave Johnson : One of the problems with it is , it' s not only the land ' donation but I can' t run my street and my sewer and water from the lots on the west side of it to the lots on the east side of it without going past this land so I have the same development costs going into the park unless I were to give the land and the City were to pay the proportionate share of that development. I still wouldn' t want to do that but that would make it more equitable . Boyt: I think it ' s pretty typical that most developers don ' t want to give up land because it does take away from the profit. Especially on a small development . I don ' t think the beachlot though would be adequate in meeting the needs of the people of the development. That' s just my point of view. It might not necessarily be the point of view of the Commission . Dave Johnson: I haven' t read your trail ordinance, my engineer has and I 'm not exactly sure what bearing that has on but I know that it was recommended, the first letter that I got a copy of from Lori there , indicated that it was staff ' s recommendation that I be required to put a trail in on the through street and pay cash instead of any additional land . I 'm not sure what your ordinance spells out as far as how much cash you ' re looking for and so on too. If I put in trail, I know that people ' just to the southeast of me in there , Pierce and that development , I believe just put in a trail and no cash and no land. Sietsema : He had to pay park dedication fees but not trail dedication ' fees. Just as you would if you were not required to give land. You would be required , you would not have to pay the trail dedication fees but you would still be required. . . Dave Johnson : Is there a trail dedication fee and an installation of trail that I would be obligated to do? I , Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' September 14 , 1988 - Page 21 ' Sietsema : No , you do one or the other . Just as you either give land or pay the park dedication fees . Dave Johnson : Okay, what is the trail dedication fee . Sietsema: It ' s $142. 00 per acre. Dave Johnson : For the net acreage? Sietsema: Not an acre, a lot. Excuse me. $142. 00 a lot . Dave Johnson : And the park fee is? ' Sietsema: $425. 00. Dave Johnson : $425. 00. So if there were not a trail put in there, it would be $567 . 00 total which would be somewheres in the neighborhood of $15, 000. 00 I believe. If I didn' t put in a trail or give land? ' Sietsema: Unfortunately, it' s not your decision . Mady: We need to continue discussion here and get everyone ' s thoughts on this item. Sue' s given hers. Carol? ' Watson : I think the 31, 000 square feet for a potential , especially if people can drive down there and half of it turned into a parking lot. . . ' That isn ' t a park space . Now whether we would prefer to take the money to develop a park around Lake St. Joe and we would develop a real park or whether want to take a couple lots and have a very small isolated area , I guess in a way I 'd rather have the money so we could start to develop that ' Lake St . Joe property and make something that would be of significance to a large number of people but I don' t think 30, 000 square feet on that beach with half of it parking lot is providing a parkland . If we ' re ' looking to really provide virtually on-site recreation for these people , that ' s not going to solve it . ' Jo Ann Hallgren : I 'm Jo Ann Hallgren and I am the property to the south of Mr . Johnson' s property where you say you ' re going to take some of my land for the park when it' s developed . That doesn ' t leave me any choice of what land you ' re taking because you' re certainly not going to take anything that isn ' t adjacent to his . I have 11 acres and a part of it is unbuidable and part of it is very low land right across from the church. Why would you want to take good buildable property away from me for a park? I went around my neighborhood and I was trying to get information out to people about parks and they what? Another park? This is what you hear . Another little park. Who wants to go to a little park when you' ve got all those parks around the lake. If I want to pack a picnic , I 'm sure not going to go to a little park inside of a little neighborhood when I can be on Lake Minnewashta or Lake Ann or something . Mady: To answer your question, at our last meeting we almost had this place full of people waiting for just a little park because they have nothing within walking distance. The closest park to them is three- 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 22 quarters of a mile away. That isn ' t neighborhood access to a park. The same situation exists on Lake Minnewashta . We' ve had a number of people come in here and ask us for parkland. One of our commission members who II isn ' t here tonight lives on Lake Minnewashta . He has the support of the neighborhood. We want to get a park over there. Jo Ann Hallgren : I did talk to people who live on Minnewashta and that ' s I what they told me. I agree that parks are very nice but St. Joe has got a lot of condo property. . .because it ' s really marshy. To me it would be an ideal place for a larger park because of the wildlife that you could find there. Whatever is there in the lake. Mady: One of the goals we have though is , when we put a park in in that area , that they have no active play area . The park has to be useable and it' s in a marshy area. We'd lose it whenever it' s wet so we haven' t really provided a service to the people who live there. Our goal has been to attempt to at least gain active area that' s useable. Personally I 'm not sure that this proposal is going to meet that need because my personal opinion is we need more than just that. Jo Ann Hallgren : If I had my druthers , a trail is more important to me I think because you can ' t even drive down Minnewashta Parkway because of the people. I had my horse trailer and truck last night or the night before and I just literally stopped. There were bikers , joggers , women with babies in strollers . They have no place . Boyt: It ' s too bad they didn't support the trail system. Jo Ann Hallgren : I don' t know why they didn' t because it ' s very dangerous to drive, walk or ride on Minnewashta Parkway. The trail system to me is something that needs to be done . ' Dave Johnson : I guess I agree with one of the things you said about not taking all wetland but there are large enough parcels that you could get 4 or 5 acres and you wouldn' t hurt the development that much. In fact , if you have a large enough parcel , well , they didn' t take any parkland because we were bordered by a park. In Shorewood I had 44 acres and I had 93 acres in Burnsville that were just south of a park so there was no parkland taken but I ' ve seen other areas where if you' ve got a large enough parcel , it'd be advantageous to the builder to put a park in there and have houses that abut up to it . That could be a real selling point and you could recapture some of the costs of the land that you gave away because it would increase the value of the adjacent lots but that ' s not the case here. A little two-thirds or a three-quarters of an acre park wouldn ' t, to start with , there' d only be probably, I don ' t remember exactly how it lays out. I think there ' s just one lot adjacent to it but I think it goes up to the street . Maybe there' s lots on either side of it, but that' s only two lots and if it ' s a totlot or something of that nature that has very little service, it would definitely not increase the value of the adjacent lots either because it would be a nuisance to the people who live next to it . ' I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 23 Schroers : We have a real problem out in that area . According to the city standards , that western Minnewashta area is park deficient. We do not have enough park space . We don ' t really know what ' s going to be available to us in the future as far as developments are concerned and in a development like yours , if we look around at other parts of the City, we see what, the people that are moving in are basically young people raising ' a family with younger children and they like to have an area immediately adjacent to their residence where they can walk and take their children so they don ' t have to load them up in a care and haul them around to the other side of the lake to a larger public regional facility or something. They like a place in their neighborhood where they can just walk. Even if there' s just a swingset or a roughed in ballfield or whatever, they need an open space where they can actually get to from the neighborhood . I guess we have looked at this Minnewashta area before and we've considered trying to earmark funds and maybe purchase some land in the area specifically for a park and I guess we' re still in the planning and discussing stages that we really don' t know what it is that we want to do in that area. My point is that I think the people from your development very likely will show up here and say, why don' t we have park space? All the other neighborhoods in town do, why don' t we? ' Dave Johnson : I wouldn ' t be as opposed to this if when Pierce had developed his property you would have taken a couple of lots from him in ' the corner. There ' s potentially 3 developments that all come together in one corner . You ' ve got my property along the north, then kind of half ways between my property to the south it splits . She owns the western 1 half and Pierce owned the eastern half. If you had taken a couple of lots from him or equivalent space in the corner over there, then I could understand the logic of adding a couple of lots for that size area , mine to his and then eventually when she does it, get another little bit from ' her . Then you 'd wind up with 2 1/2-3 acres for the park but this way, the maximum. . . ' Boyt : Is the size of the park across the street that serves 60 homes . 30,000 square feet which is the same as the size that' s serving 60 homes and this would serve 26 homes and they'd be much better off . Dave Johnson: I think you ' ll have to admit that a beachlot serves a totally different purpose than this type of a park. Watson: How big are the lots in your development? Dave Johnson: The average is 17 , 000 and some square feet . The minimum is ' 15, 000. The average lot size is 17, 346 square feet. Watson : Okay, which is a little over a third of an acre . I live on somewhere between three-quarters of an acre of land. All the lots in ' Greenwood Shores are at least three-quarters of an acre. I really have trouble seeing my yard as a park. I 'm not saying that it couldn' t be . We ' ve developed very carefully. We ' re not going to provide a lot of ' services on that amount of land . Three-fourths when you live on a third of an acre , that ' s not a real big lot . 11 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting .. September 14 , 1988 - Page 24 I Sietsema : But people in Pheasant Hills would die for it. I Mady: You also want more than that though. They' re going to need ballfields. I Boyt : We talked about in the future though trying to acquire land south of this but we' re not going for just three-quarters of an acre. We' re II trying to plan ahead . Mady: A third of an acre is not going to solve our problem. It ' s not even going to begin to try and solve it. My opinion was , the first time II we reviewed it and still is, that we' re not gaining anything by taking land from this developer . We still have to pursue the answer to the problem. We need to solve the problem on the west side of Lake II Minnewashta which is acquire at least a parcel of at least 5 acres so we can a ballfield in there. We can have a totlot in there. We can have tennis courts . Whatever we need to put there, we need at least that much land to do it. Getting 30, 000 square feet here and 30 , 000 square feet from the adjacent property will still only give us 1 1/2 acres , that ' s not large enough to do anything more than a totlot and a place to catch. We need something better than that. I don ' t like doing things piecemeal . I II want to get it done right. Boyt : The Planning Commission supports us in this . They would like to see more small neighborhood parks . They see the need within our community for small neighborhood parks . You see the need when people come in here. Schroers: But are we talking 5 acres? Is that a small neighborhood park? II Jo Ann Hallgren : I was at the Planning Commission meeting and that is not what they said at all . I Boyt : This was a private discussion with the Planning Commission . Jo Ann Hallgren: That' s not what they said to all the people that were II sitting around . Dave Johnson : Especially David Headla had some very strong objections . I Jo Ann Hallgren: And the guy who sits in the middle, was sort of the monitor? I Mady: Ladd? Jo Ann Hallgren : Conrad . He said , why piecemeal it? Get 5 acres from II someplace and make a decent park. Boyt : That' s what we need to do if we' re going to do it but we' ve been II sitting here for 2 years talking about it and not doing it and losing 10 acre here , 20 acres there . We' re going to lose it all . _ Mady: We need to put it on the Comp Plan and we need to do it . I II I Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 25 Sietsema: The problem with it is , if you ' re going to get 5 acres from a developer , you have to have a big development. All that' s left up there ' is 10-15 acre parcels . If you take 5 acres out of a 10 acre parcel , you' re going to have a taking on your hands and that' s not going to be. . . Watson : You' re going to have to buy it . ' Mady: We' re going to have to buy it. We have to come to grips with the fact that that ' s what we have to do . We have to go out and buy a park. ' We know it. I 'm sure we know it. We've got to do it. That' s our only reasonable solution to the entire area . Sietsema: Then it should be put in the Comp Plan. Schroers : From my personal point of view, if I were moving into Country Oaks and I had rights that gave me access to a beachlot, when I had time, ' that ' s where I would go and I would bet that because I didn' t have x amount of space around me , I would still go to that beachlot . But that ' s just a personal thing and it ' s besides the point here actually. My ' question is , if we waive the park and trail fees , how much is that going to help us in terms of being able to purchase parkland in the area? Is it enough money that it' s really going to do us any good? ' Mady: This development is going to generate roughly $15, 000. 00. Dave Johnson : If we don ' t put in the trails . Mady: And the Pierce development is roughly the same size. ' Jo Ann Hallgren : I talked to Bob Pierce today and he said that he did not pay any cash. Sietsema : No , it' s charged to your building permits . ' Mady: When you go and make your permit with the City, you then pay the fee . The developer doesn' t pay it all up front . ' Dave Johnson: Oh, he doesn' t? That' s different. I was expecting to shell out 15 grand in order to file the plat . ' Sietsema: You can do it that way but you don' t have to. We get it as you develop it. ' Jo Ann Hallgren : If half of the place never gets developed , you never get that? Watson : That ' s right . Sietsema : We ' ve had such big development that it was a substantial amount of money. We' ve had some developments that it would be $100, 000. 00. Dave Johnson : In this particular case , I guess speaking for myself, I 'd just like to get the issue resolved. If I did not have to put in a trail , . 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 14 , 1988 - Page 26 ' which that ' s a fairly short street . It doesn ' t go anywhere for people 1 walking on it. It ' s also not a high traffic thing . They can walk on the street. It ' s not like Minnewashta but if I did not have to give up any land or did not have to put in the trail , and only had to pay the fees , I II guess if you were to ask that I pay them up front then maybe that part of the issue there, not up front but when I filed the plat. I would be willing to accept that particular condition. I don ' t know what your rules II or ordinances or anything else are. I, quite frankly, I 'm surprised to find out that I didn' t have to pay them up front because I expected that . I have yet to do a development where I haven' t had to pay it before they gave me the plat back signed . Mady: I have a question for you. What' s this property run? Undeveloped property in the sewered area , that' s what you have there, if you were going to buy just 5 open acres out there undeveloped? Dave Johnson: I happened to get a fairly good buy on that. A fair price II would have been about $10, 000 . 00 an acre . I 'm not sure. It depends on the soil conditions and everything because you ' ve got some soil problems in that area . I paid less than that for the 7 acres that I bought from Lee Anderson and the house and land that I bought from her son is yet to be determined what I paid for that until I split the house off and see what I get for it. I guess if I were looking for a piece of land and you had one to sell that had a few trees on it , that was decent topography and a decent area, similar area to that, I would snap it up at $10, 000. 00 an acre or close to it. Mady: We need to move on this thing . Anybody have any thoughts , a motion II is in order . Watson : I make a motion that we take park dedication fees and trail fees in lieu of. Boyt : You don ' t want the trail constructed? , Watson: We didn' t really talk about that . Mady: We did before . To construct it on the through street . 1 Watson: So we want park dedication fees in lieu of the land. We want the trail constructed on the through street . , Sietsema: Do you want me to read you your motion? Watson : Yes please . , Sietsema : Carol moved to recommend accepting the park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to request the developer to construct an off street trail along the streets in lieu of trail fees . Mady: Second. I 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting ISeptember 14 , 1988 - Page 27 IIDave Johnson : Did that say, here ' s the plat , does that say you want this trail going in here and one going down here? 1 Sietsema : Yes . Mady: Yes . Our intention is when that other loop, there ' s going to be Ianother development coming in there and you would possibly. . . Jo Ann Hallgren : Not as far as I 'm concerned . IIMady: Not right now but some time. Boyt : There might be a deadend sign. IMady: You ' re aware of that situation but it' s our purpose to have a trail feed out to Minnewashta to hopefully gain to another park or if we can IIfeed out to the . . .park. I Watson moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend accepting the park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to request the developer to construct an off street trail along the streets in lieu of trail fees. All voted in favor and motion carried . I - SITE PLAN REVIEW, OAK VIEW APARTMENTS . IISietsema: We ' re missing having a large scale plan down here. If you want I can go up and get one but otherwise if we want to refer to the one that II I put in the packet. I think that pretty much is self explanatory. It covers it . What this is is a subdivision proposing to subdivide 18 . 9 acres into 4 R-12 lots and 2 outlots and to develop 17 8-plex buildings. The R-12 would be high density. 12 units per acre . It ' s located just to I the west of West Village Apartments along West Village Road. In looking through the Comprehensive Plan , there are existing parks in the area being Chan Pond Park and City Center Park. This property lies within the I service area of those two parks . There are trails along Kerber Blvd . and on the trail plan there are trails called for along Powers Blvd . . Therefore , the Comprehensive Plan does not identify this as a park deficient area or call for parkland within this development. It ' s the I recommendation of myself to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to require the construction of a trail along West Village Road be requested and also a 20 foot trail easement along the east side of I Powers Blvd . in lieu of trail dedication fees . We would attempt to build that trail along Powers within the road right-of-way if at all possible but requesting the trail easement gives us some leeway in case there' s a problem with the pond . IMady: Through this development , this is the west side of that thing being developed. Isn' t there a street running in through the middle there? ISietsema : It would connect through so that would be a through street . West Village Road would be a through street. MN Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 28 ' Watson : Are these going to be units similar to the rest of the West Village units? Sietsema: I don ' t know. Mady: The current issue of the Sailor has an art sketch. They' re ' apartments versus, the West Village is more of a townhouse type of arrangement . These are more of an apartment type . Still that type of construction but more of an apartment building. A larger building and not II so many individual units . Watson: I remember now seeing that picture. I didn ' t pay any attention to what it was . Schroers moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to require the construction of a trail along West Village Road and a 20 foot trail easement along the east side of Powers Boulevard in lieu of trail dedication fees . All voted in favor and the motion carried . REVIEW OBJECTIVES FOR SOUTHERN PARK ACQUISITION. ' Sietsema: As you may recall , we set up some objectives for criteria to decide on a tract of land in the southern part of Chanhassen. We took those objectives to the City Council for their input . As they will be making the final decision, we thought that it would be appropriate for them to have input on what our criteria is . They had four changes and that was , to make it at least 80 acres in size. That the land costs must be up to $3 , 500. 00 per acre and not to exceed $300 , 000. 00 total . That the land topography be conducive for active facilities . They wanted us to take out the number of ballfields. Then that it offers a unique opportunity. Mady: Did they discuss what a unique opportunity is? Boyt: Something different than what we have now. Mady: Which is? ' Sietsema: I wasn ' t at that meeting so what I 'm assuming that they meant is, if there' s something that' s in the southern part of Chanhassen that' s unique to Chanhassen , or unique in the sense that we don ' t have it elsewhere, that they would like. . . Watson : i .e.? , Sietsema: Bluffs . Creeks . Schroers : A place for people to ride their horses . We' ll make a horse riding ranch. Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' September 14 , 1988 - Page 29 Mady: One other comment t I had concerns items 1 and 2 . They' re both musts. If that' s a must, if we have to have 80 acres , a minimum of 80 acres , what happens if there ' s a beautiful 65 acre parcel that ' s already flat and we can get it cheap? All of a sudden it ' s gone so I have a real problem with that must . Tom is the one that pushed that one . I don ' t think he fully understood what he was doing and where our objectives were. I personally can ' t work within that must . I just can ' t . It doesn ' t work for me. If we have an opportunity to get 65 acres and it ' s flat land and we can get it for $3, 500 . 00 an acre. It can work as a want but not as a must because as a want you can rate it. But if you put it as we' ve got to have 80 acres of land or nothing , we may end up with nothing . Robinson: I think we go back and make an exception at that time. Mady: But right now this is our criteria and I know that it ' s wrong . ' Sietsema : Why don' t we change it to a want and we can remind the Council that that was their must . We' ll be working under two different criteria ' but I don' t know how to resolve that. Mady: I have a problem with that . I happen to watch that Council meeting on TV and it just hit me. Sietsema : I don ' t know how to resolve except for us to treat it as a want and if the situation does arise, we just have to express to the Council when they' re reviewing it that although it is their must , we felt that the must could be, we didn' t look at it that way. Mady: When I watched it, the Council I didn' t think had an understanding ' of how this decision analysis worked. What a must versus a want does to you in making your decision. I think you have to have a basic understanding of how that analysis works before you make a determination ' of whether something is a must or a want because it really makes a real , real severe impact on how we can handle things. That' s the only comment I had on that . Schroers : I had a question . We are trying to acquire but who i.s actively seeking a specific piece of property? Do we have someone? Is staff? ' Boyt : Is Mark going to do it? Sietsema : Staff will be doing that . I am and I have worked with Mark on it in the past. Boyt : The only unique piece of property out there is Erhart ' s property and that' s not for sale. ' Mady: All property' s for sale , you just have to have the right price . Boyt : I don' t know what the acreage is there. It ' s very rolling land . All the area south of Lyman in that rectangle is very rolling . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14, 1988 - Page 30 , Mady: It' s going to be difficult to find a flat land . There ' s going to be some site work necessary. Watson : Have you seen pieces of property that you think, do you have any II kind of pinpointed that you feel are appropriate? Sietsema : I talked to Al Klingelhutz. He came in and pointed out a few and I haven ' t looked at it actively in the last month since we talked about these objectives . I did right after that and then it ' s been on the back burner now because other things have been pressing but there are definitely some possibilities out there. Mady: I 'd like to see us work with Al and Tim because they both have a lot of knowledge on the area . 1 Boyt : Al had said before that he tried to acquire a park, he wanted that piece of property where Tim. . . ' Mady: It might be helpful when we get later in the fall , as our schedule losens up, bring Al in to talk. ' Watson : I just want to be sure that we . . . Sietsema: We will look at all of our options . ' Watson : We' re ready for it and we' re not standing here hemming and hawing. ' Schroers : I agree and I also think that Minnewashta area is just about as important too so when we actively get into to really checking on the availability of parkland , I hope that we can also look in that Minnewashta II area. Watson : And say, we have looked at this property and initiate discussion I about if it' s for sale. We don' t have to wait for the sale sign to go up. Initiate the discussion , this looks like it would be want we want . Mady: The question that if something comes up for development, that we do I have the money sitting here now, practically so we do have the ability to buy a parcel . Boyt : If it comes up for development , the prices are already changed . We II might need to start looking at topo maps in the County offices . They have the aerial views . Sietsema : We have those here and that' s what I went over with Mark. Boyt: I think once we approve this list, we need to get on it right away. II Mady: The hardest thing , you ' ve got to recognize that there a number of things that staff is being inundated with right now too. ' Boyt : I think, the rest of us . 1 . , . Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14, 1988 - Page 31 Robinson: Is this just information? Sietsema : Yes . Robinson : I ' ve got a question. It says , that section to end it all , with the amended items and the addition of items 13 and 14. Mady: That was just Council minutes . They got their numbering wrong . I got real confused listening to them but I believe they were adding one item which had to be number 13 and not number 14 . Robinson: It sounds like it because Jay Johnson ends it by saying , okay, ' so that ' d be like a 14 but it ' s really number 2. Sietsema: I got the notes from Barb, Jo Ann and Don and this is what I ' came up with and then reading the Minutes so I think that pretty much covers it. Are there any items on number 8 that anybody had any questions on? Mady: Rosemount ' s going to present us with an opportunity for our Lake Susan Park. Siesetma : We ' ll be getting about 3 additional acres to Lake Susan which will help us out for the boat access from Rosemount . Mady: On the north side? Sietsema : We will be shooting the fireworks off on September 30th . We' re having a big Octoberfest celebration. We' re going to have a good old band . Boyt : Who ' s sponsoring this? ' Sietsema: The City. Boyt : The City or Park and Rec? Sietsema: It ' s the City. A combination of Park and Rec and HRA. We ' ll be serving brats and polish sausage and hamburgers and sauerkrat and pie ' and german potatoe salad and potato chips and beer and pop. Robinson: And it will be where? ' Sietsema : On Market Blvd . . The tent will be set up at the end of what ' s now Market Blvd . . Staff is going to be manning the food and selling the ' food . We would like anybody who could help us . We' re expecting a big turnout. The fireworks are going to be spectacular . It' s the last show that he has this year and he ' s just handpacking , he said wonderful things. Everything he' s got left over from the rest of the year , he ' s throwing it ' in there . He said we ' ll never get another fireworks display for $5 , 000. 00 like this one. So he' s almost afraid that we ' re going to get spoiled . He ' s going to be doing some really creative things . Park and Rec Commission Meeting _ September 14 , 1988 - Page 33 1 Mady: I 'd like an update on the task force. I know what' s going on in I the community center but I don' t know what ' s going on on the trails task force . Boyt : It' s called the safe sidewalk instead of trails . Mady: That's what I understand. You changed the name and I think we at least need to know what ' s going on. Some of the things I 'm hearing is you' re talking about being specific on areas and cement. Location of streets . Boyt : Right . We have a map that shows what exists now and what ' s going to be concrete and bituminous. Is that on it? Sietsema : No, it isn ' t. ' Boyt : We talked about that. Mady: I would hope that those things come back to us . Sietsema : What we' ll likely do because we' re really running out of time II and there ' s no way I can bring the trail plan back here and say, what are you going to do on each different section is that when we deal with those questions in the audience , we can say it will likely be this . This is what we anticpate. Based on what we ' ve done with Carver Beach and with Laredo , this would typically be the type of section. Or we would foresee this but it' s not written in stone anywhere . Boyt : It would really be helpful if we had more people. Sietsema: There' s only 4 of us . ' Mady: We have the same problem with the community center . We have a task force of between 12 and 15 people and the most we have 6 to show up to meeting . a Boyt : Well , we only have 4 . Watson : . . .provide some information about the difference in cost for sidewalk section and bituminous trail section. Boyt : Another number wanted is how much is it going to cost Jim Mady for II this trail system. For 29 miles of trail . How much is it going to cost the average resident in Chanhassen . Watson: When we' re sitting here talking about all this sidewalk . . . Park and Rec Commission Meeting ' September 14 , 1988 - Page 34 ' Boyt : Lori said in some of the developments that have been going on, the costs was not as high as they thought so it ' s not prohibitive. Watson : The other thing . It' s really fun to see all the people over at South Lotus Lake and North Lotus Lake. Schroers : While you' re finding out all those numbers , why don' t you find out, if you get a chance, confer with both the park and the street departments in regards to their feelings of the new proposed trails and how they intend to maintain them and what they intend to do about removing snow from the long side of Kerber ' s retaining wall and that sort of thing . ' Watson: They work downtown so they' ve got to get their stuff together . Sietsema: That ' s still the contractor who ' s taking care of that . Schroers: People may want some answers . Boyt : That ' s what they want . They want maintenance. They want upkeep ' and winter maintenance and how much is it going to cost. Schroers : Can we actually take a snowblower and run it down the sidewalk and shoot the snow into a truck along side of it? Get it out of there? Mady: You' re planning on going referendum in November? The community center task force at our meeting last week recommended to the City Council ' that the community center not be put on the referendum in November . We have too many items that have to be discussed prior to and two months to go to the election is just not enough time . We have the school board ' facilities task force is going to be reviewing the proposal behind the public school . We need to get some information about possibly a different site such as Lake Ann because there' s a lot of stuff printed in the paper that ' s totally erroneous . I 'm getting tired of reading some of the ' candidates ideas in the paper because they just aren' t going to work. They don ' t have enough information . It ' s doing some serious damage to the City. The City' s ability to propose something because they' re saying ' things , these are supposedly people who know what ' s going on in the City and it' s totally wrong . Watson : You ' ve got a misconception though that because you ' re a candidate you know what' s going on in the City. Mady: But everybody' s got that opinion . I 'm hearing a lot of people talk ' about some of these guys . . . Watson : That ' s a mistaken piece of information . Mady: We anticipate you' re not going to be able to come to a conclusion for a month or so anyway because we ' re going to be asking for some money. ' Boyt : Do you know what our recommendation is going to be? Build a new school . Five rooms are not going to help us an awful lot . 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 14 , 1988 - Page 35 1 Mady: The new school ' s not going to happen in Chanhassen. Watson: It better . Boyt : That ' s where it is going to happen . In Chanhassen . It' s not going to happen in Chaska and they know that. It would be between Chanhassen and Victoria . ' Mady: In the unsewered area? Boyt : No, there' s sewer north of TH 5. That ' s where they've planning . ' Robinson moved, Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor I and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned . Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 . I UNEDITED PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 15 , 1988 1 MEMBERS PRESENT : Jim vonLorenz , Wayne Wenzlaff , Candy Takkenun , Bill Bernjelm, Dale Gregory, Richard Wing , Public Safety Director Chaffee , Chief Deputy Castleberry 1 VISITORS : Chris Burns , newspaper IThe meeting was called to order at 7: 00 p .m. by Chairman Wing . Minutes : Motion by Takkenun , seconded by Bernjelm to approve the August minutes. All voted in favor. 1 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CHIEF DEPUTY CASTLEBERRY Ii . Castleberry discussed the sheriff ' s 1989 budget and his hopes for adequate funding to add badly needed support personnel . Expansion needs and plans at the sheriff ' s office were presented . Expansion of I the jail , a new location for the patrol division were two issues discussed . Takkenun inquired into any plans for a physical fitness area such as Chaska had recently provided the police department . Castleberry had no specific plans for such a facility at this time . I Chaffee noted that Chanassen public safety personnel will be able to use the facilities being planned for the new fire station. Chief Gregory noted that the space is being allotted for an exercise area 1 but no dollars for furnishings are budgeted at this time . 2 . Castelberry discussed his goal to achieve "acredidation" ( police) or professional standards for the department over the next five years. I Chaffee stated that he had a copy of these standards on file for any member interested . I 3. Wing questioned the issue of local control and the ability to gain tighter controls on the individual 8 hour shifts . All the members who are the professional members of the commission (Chaffee , Castleberry , I vonLorenz and Bernjelm) diiscussed this issue at length . One car can ' t be consistant . One car patrol is very difficult to be very pro-active and visible with . One car at todays call levels would have a difficult time seeing all the neighborhoods on one shift . I Personalities and priorities of individual officers have alotto do with what occurrs on any given shift . Castleberry and Bernjelm noted that there is a high degree of "scrutiny ' of the deputies now. The I contract system is open to accountability and as such is watched pretty intently . Supervision and patrol duties in other cities was discussed . Chaffee noted that local control is not the issue as much as levels of service . Can one car provide for the visibility and I response times desired by the residents? Can one car in fact , even handle the present call load on some shifts? Bernjelm noted that the most important issue to look at is the amount of available patrol time I per shift . The number of calls is not the real issue . How much free time is there per shift? Wenzlaff noted that the commission has discussed the need of additional service and has recommended such . Wayne discussed the need for a much higher level of facts ie raw data III and then an interpretation of those facts . Any recommendations to the I .5 City Council need to be justified and proven formally . Wing requested that Castelberry and more specifically , Director Chaffee , devote more time and concern to the accumulation and interpretation of local statistics as they relate to the present activity levels . How many calls per shift are being handled? How long are deputies delayed on DWI , traffic or officer initiated calls? Is there any free time on various shifts? Wing noted that to approach the council for any increase in service levels or additional patrol on 1989 or 1990 will require a very complete and thoroughly researched presentation. To 'this point , there as been alot of discussion of needs but the commission has not been shown any data and statistics to justify the comments . Wing felt that the commission should move ahead on an update to the 1981 Police Report in which a review of all issues could be presented . Costs , alternatives and establishment of "levels of service"s would be included . In the past , the commission has researched the necessary statistics . Wing would like staff to provide the raw data necessary for such a report and he requested that Jim Chaffee re-prioritize his time to allow for compiling the raw data which will be required . CHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, DIRECTOR CHAFFEE : I 1 . Mr . Chaffee discussed and reviewed the 1989 budget with the commission . A major point of discussion was the CSO Program and it ' s funding and personnel . The commission reaffirmed its support for the two part-time officers and the addition of one full-time officer for 1989 . With animal calls up and the need for park patrol , the commission would like to support Mr . Chaffee ' s requests and assist him in showing the needs and benefits of this program to the City Council . The issue is not "CSO ' s" but rather the need for aggressive animal patrol/control in the city and assumption of routine duties that will provide relief and allow for additional patrol time for the deputy on duty . Takkenun noted that the percent increase in the 1989 budget was quite high and showed a large increase to the public safety sector . 2 . Mr . Chaffee noted that a second CSO had been hired , Bob Z Idowski. Both Bob and Mark Littfin were attending EMT (first aid ) school at Hennepin General . ' 3. As several of the commission members had spent a good part of their past morning ( 2 : 00 to 3 : 00 A.M. ) listening to Prince "jam" from 4 to 5 miles away , Mr . Chaffee discussed the previous evening , the number of complaints and the eventual issue of a citation to the party at Paisly Park for noise . CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF DALE GREGORY : ' 1 . Dale reviewed the progress and plans for the new station . The footings he noted , will be started very soon . 2 . The call level has remained up and an increase is seen for 1988. Dale noted that there are two new recruits which will bring the membership to 32 . 3 . Dale noted that lack of daytime personnel continues to plague the department as is the case in most communities . This is made up for by I I . use of the city ' s mutual aid aggreements . 4. Wing inquired into the large number of calls he has heard for ' assistance on personal injury accidents in the Lower Y Area. Chief Gregory did agree that there had been a rash of such calls recently but historically , this area has been inconsistant with quiet periods ocurring . He noted that the department is often cancelled prior to arrival at the scene . The problem is very simple , inadequate roads and heavy traffic . As such , Gregory and Chaffee noted that there was little the city could do to resolve or improve the problem and lessen ' the accident rate occurring in this area . UNFINISHED BUSINESS : None NEW BUSINESS : 1 . Wing will prepare a brief Annual Report to the council by the end of October . 2 . The commission reviewed the ordinance covering the Public Safety Commission . Bernjelm had in August , noted several items in the ordinance which did make PAC slightly different than most the city commissions . Most issues can become complex and discussion and input from many sources is necessary . The commission is , perhaps the most important , communication tool for the city , staff , residents etc . The commission urges input from staff , deputies and residents and as such, an open forum is needed . It is the commissions responsibility to assist staff in maintaining statistics , and recommending changes . By ordinance , the commission is involved in decisions made and presented to the council by staff . 3 . The commissions concern over the 1989 Police Contract and the move ' to 24 hours prompted the decision to approach the County Board to express the commission ' s concerns regarding the 1989 Contract . There is a need to move on this item immediatley as the County Board will ' finalize the budget very soon . Specifically , the commission would like to note the city ' s commitment to the Contract by chosing 24 hours in 1989 and would like to see an equal commitment on the part of the County Board by providing adequate budget monies to the Sheriff ' s ' Department in 1989 . The need for adequate staff ie Base Level Service and the expectation that the 24 hour car will be just that are also tied to the commission ' s desire to meet with the Board as representatives of the city . Candy Takkenun agreed to meet with Don Ashworth to discuss this item and if approved by him, Takkenun , the commission and city ' staff will attend a County Board meeting in the ' next two weeks . 4 . Wenzlaff requested that a different deputy be assigned to attend a commission meeting on a rotating basis . The purpose of these visits ' would be to get to know the deputy , get them more comfortable with the commission and allow the commission to interview the individual deputies as to the problems and needs being encountered on their ' shifts . It was noted that this was the case in past years . Chaffee and Castleberry stated Wenzlaff ' s request will be instated effective 1 ,. i II 1 in October . ' 5 . Wing discussed the need for secretarial assistance at the meetings . The city planned to advertise for this position and the commission had permission to hire a person to take and type minutes once a month . If any member knew of an interested party , the city would like to know. The issues have become to involved to act as chairman and take notes at the same time . A new chairman will have to be selected in December , as previously noted by Wing , he will only finish 1988 as chairman The meeting adjourned at 9 : 25 p .m. The next regular meeting will be Thursday , October 20, 1988 at 7: 00 p.m. Agenda items : Deputy visitation County Board Meeting , review Submitted by : Richard Wing i r